Simulated Reality

This is the place to discuss Salvia divinorum, splendins, and the other psychoactive salvias.
User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Thu May 26, 2011 6:53 pm

kedabra wrote:So to give a specific universal number, (or rather - an extensional number?)
we need to specify the type of bijection between the program and the inputs that allows those combinations to be enumerable....?
There are two ways. One consists in choosing a universal system or programming language. Enumerate the programs, with one input one output, i.e. computing functions from N to N, in that language. Then a universal number will be the number in the enumeration corresponding to an emulator to that, or to another system.

But to "define" more intrinsic system, the other way consists in using the theorem saying that just the natural numbers (N), together with addition, and multiplication, and a tiny amount of logic, is already a universal system. In that case, computability becomes a particular case of provability, and yo can define a much more natural and intrinsic notion of being a universal number. In that way you can define an arithmetical notion of computation, which is as good as anyone can be. Eventually the laws of mind and matter cannot depend on the choice of the initial universal system in use. The reason is that mind and matter will be internal modalities. If you have really grasped the sixth first step of the Universal Dovetailer argument, you might guess why it will have to be like that.

Does universal number exist? Well, if you are willing to bet on Church thesis, it is enough to find one universal program "understanding" one universal language so that it is capable of computing any phi_i, to prove the existence of a universal computable function. And thus of a universal program computing it. The diagonalization of Kleene shows that such universal number can crash, and that it computes necessarily all partial computable functions.

A universal dovetailer is just *one* program which *do* generate and compute all phi_i on all arguments. It generates all programs, and all inputs, and do all computations. By itself it is a program with no inputs and no outputs. It belongs to 0^0, with 0 = the empty set.

You know that there is a computable bijection between NxNxN and N, so you might guess that it should not be to difficult to generate all programs and "dovetail" on all the finite executions of all those programs.

Let us write: phi_56(789)^100089796 for the 100089796th first steps of the computation (perhaps unfinished) of the function phi_56 on the argument 789, when computed by some universal u. Well, by the bijection between NxNxN and N, you can access the triples (56, 789, 100089796), and all similar triples to manage the going through all computations. More detail later, but I hope you get the idea. I should a bit more explain the notion of 'step' of a computation.

kedabra wrote: I'm not sure how the concept of memory fits into what youve said so far about universal computable functions....what is the memory of a function? Do the limitations of real devices mess up our theory?
A function has no memory, but a program computing that function might, and will, have some sort of memory. Some universal language have explicit memory allocations, others have dynamical automatic allocation of memory so that the programmer has not to take care of it, when programming the universal machine (the intepreter of its universal language). Allocation of a memory, binding of value to parameter, etc. are typical steps of a computation. Numbers themselves can be used for "memorising data", like a numerical disk encoding some symphony. Those numbers might make 'sense' for some universal number decoding it, and eventually reacting to it in its own way. And all that can be described in term of natural number (computable) relations.
kedabra wrote: OK, thats a bit hard to understand, but i get the gist of it, not sure about the implications for consciousness though.....
You might reread the first sixth steps of the Universal Dovetailer argument. In step seven you are living in a (supposedly material) universe executing somewhere the tasks of a universal dovetailer. To predict your possible first person experience consistent with your data, you cannot use *only* physical laws, but you have also to take into account the infinitely many computations going through your actual state, at the level where you said "yes" to the digitalist surgeon, and below. If you want we can do the steps again, it might certainly help the others. What do you think?

Or let us be sure you grasp the universal dovetailing first? Once you know how to generate all programs, it is not difficult to grasp that you can generate all executions, on all arguments, of all programs. The result is one program, without inputs, and which run forever doing all possible computational task. Assuming comp it generates all possible dreams. OK?

User avatar
kedabra
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:11 pm

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by kedabra » Thu May 26, 2011 9:10 pm

Eventually the laws of mind and matter cannot depend on the choice of the initial universal system in use. The reason is that mind and matter will be internal modalities. If you have really grasped the sixth first step of the Universal Dovetailer argument, you might guess why it will have to be like that.
is it because any universal system can be simulated by any other universal system, and since we cannot know from inside what level we are at, the laws of physics and mind must be independent of any particular system?

salvialover24 wrote: You might reread the first sixth steps of the Universal Dovetailer argument. In step seven you are living in a (supposedly material) universe executing somewhere the tasks of a universal dovetailer. To predict your possible first person experience consistent with your data, you cannot use *only* physical laws, but you have also to take into account the infinitely many computations going through your actual state, at the level where you said "yes" to the digitalist surgeon, and below. If you want we can do the steps again, it might certainly help the others. What do you think?
I think AHA! now maybe I see what youre getting at - to compute a consistent extension to my current state, we have to scan through all the possible futures in an enumerable progression - if we compute one future at a time, we would crash in an unpredicatble way. So those kind of universes would soon crash, they wouldn't be very interesting. A universe or multiverse that dovetailed would be able to compute all possible futures including ones that crash, because it only does one step from each future at a time. So our existence is possible only if all the other possibilities are also created, including the impossible ones?

But yes, it would certainly help to go over this again. It does slip away from me sometimes!
Or let us be sure you grasp the universal dovetailing first? Once you know how to generate all programs, it is not difficult to grasp that you can generate all executions, on all arguments, of all programs. The result is one program, without inputs, and which run forever doing all possible computational task. Assuming comp it generates all possible dreams. OK?
So inputs are not relevant, because we are computing all possible computations? we don't need to know which specific part to compute?

One question i've been meaning to ask - If the universe is infinite, how can we ever get past step one? Although it wouldnt crash, the computation would never end, so how can step 2 start?
Last edited by kedabra on Thu May 26, 2011 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Sat May 28, 2011 8:00 pm

kedabra wrote:is it because any universal system can be simulated by any other universal system, and since we cannot know from inside what level we are at, the laws of physics and mind must be independent of any particular system?
Yes. We will have opportunity to make this more precise.

kedabra wrote: I think AHA! now maybe I see what youre getting at - to compute a consistent extension to my current state, we have to scan through all the possible futures in an enumerable progression - if we compute one future at a time, we would crash in an unpredicatble way. So those kind of universes would soon crash, they wouldn't be very interesting. A universe or multiverse that dovetailed would be able to compute all possible futures including ones that crash, because it only does one step from each future at a time. So our existence is possible only if all the other possibilities are also created, including the impossible ones?
Very close to impossible. More of the "insane" type, but still consistent. But to predict any future personal experience, we will have to take into account all consistent computations going trough our "actual states", and then physics (notably) is conceptually reduced to a statistics on computations. The problem is that the UD generates a priori much more crazy hallucinations than 'consensual-reality-like' type of subjective experiences. This might lead to a refutation of computationalism. But computer science shows that it too early to conclude this, and indeed the constraints put by the notion of universal machine makes all this non trivial. Keep in mind that I am not defending the truth of mechanism, just the fact that IF mechanism is true, then Plato's theology is correct and Aristotle's theology (basically the one used by both atheists and christians, and the most common paradigm) is not correct.
kedabra wrote: But yes, it would certainly help to go over this again. It does slip away from me sometimes!
OK. Nice. It will be one of the next post. Below, I explained a bit more precisely the Universal Dovetailer.

kedabra wrote: So inputs are not relevant, because we are computing all possible computations? we don't need to know which specific part to compute?
Indeed. The universal dovetailer has no inputs and no outputs, but this is not new. Any "universe" is like that. If there is a physical universe, it cannot interact with an environment, because, by definition of universe, it has no environment. It contains all environments. The UD has that same property, except that we can see it as a manner to view just a set of elementary arithmetical truth.
kedabra wrote: One question i've been meaning to ask - If the universe is infinite, how can we ever get past step one? Although it wouldnt crash, the computation would never end, so how can step 2 start?
OK. Let us look a bit more carefully at the working of the universal dovetailing. Let us consider the bijection between NxNxN and N that you gave us some posts above.
I copy and paste your bijection:

0 == (0,0,0)

1 == (1,0,0)
2 == (0,1,0)
3 == (0,0,1)

4 == (2,0 0)
5 == (1,0,1)
6 == (1,1,0)
7 == (0,2,0)
8 == (0,1,1)
9 == (0,0,2)

10 == (3,0,0)
11 == (2,1,0)
12 == (2,0,1)
13 == (1,2,0)
14 == (1,1,1)
15 == (1,0,2)
16 == (0,3,0)
17 == (0,2,1)
18 == (0,1,2)
19 == (0,0,3)
etc.

Now we can enumerate all such (i, j, k) and for each of them compute the kth step of phi_i(j).
Starting at (0, 0, 0) we compute the zeroth step of phi_0(0). This always halt, because we compute, or execute only one step of the computation. Such step are elementary operations, like erasing a memory, or adding one to a memory, or whatever. Such definition of steps are dependent of the initial phi_i chosen. The key is that a one step computation always halts. So we can proceed.
And so we go to the next triple, (1, 0, 0) and compute the zeroth step of phi_1(0), and so one.
You can memorize the last step "result", or "continuation" so that you don't do again entirely a computation already well begun. But this is not even necessary. Any universal dovetailer will execute any other universal dovetailers, and its execution, or a trace of it, will have a mandelbrot look, doing everything in a terrible redundant way. Now, assuming mechanism, that is that there is a level of description of your body/brain/environment which is Turing emulable, the UD will acces it, and this infinitely often in all computations going through your state. If we are machine, it can be shown that the physical laws are filtered and/or projected by universal numbers with respect of infinities of universal numbers.
But let us not anticipate. have you a clearer idea of what is a universal dovetailer? It is just a program which generates and executes all programs.
It cannot know what are the total and the partial programs, but it overcomes that difficulty by running them all by dovetailing, like above, on all finite pieces of execution. The UD never stops, and never output anything.
It is a sort of dreamer, except it makes all dreams, and some, the physical, are partially sharable. The UD describes a natural matrix, and I can show (but that is long and tedious) that it already exist (in some arithmetical sense) in elementary arithmetic.

User avatar
expanding
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:00 pm

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by expanding » Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:05 pm

-this post melds with the thread for "Things (films, etc) that remind you of salvia"-
http://www.entheogen.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23073

Disney's "Tangled" certainly wasn't salviesque, but it did have a theme within it... moving from a life within a partially-true environment, and moving into a more full more expansive more true environment. (ie, moving from a given simulation, to a more vivid more truth-based simulation,.. or to an absolute truth environment.

A few other films to provide metaphors or visualizations for this movement are:
"The Nines"
"Star Trek TNG: True Q"
"World on a Wire" (or "13th Floor", though "World on a Wire" focuses more exclusively on the theme)

Moving from one environment reality to an other environment reality is termed "emigration", according to the wiki Simulated Reality page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality

User avatar
kedabra
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:11 pm

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by kedabra » Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:25 am

salvialover24 wrote:Y
Very close to impossible. More of the "insane" type, but still consistent. But to predict any future personal experience, we will have to take into account all consistent computations going trough our "actual states", and then physics (notably) is conceptually reduced to a statistics on computations. The problem is that the UD generates a priori much more crazy hallucinations than 'consensual-reality-like' type of subjective experiences. This might lead to a refutation of computationalism. But computer science shows that it too early to conclude this, and indeed the constraints put by the notion of universal machine makes all this non trivial. Keep in mind that I am not defending the truth of mechanism, just the fact that IF mechanism is true, then Plato's theology is correct and Aristotle's theology (basically the one used by both atheists and christians, and the most common paradigm) is not correct.



OK. Nice. It will be one of the next post. Below, I explained a bit more precisely the Universal Dovetailer.




Indeed. The universal dovetailer has no inputs and no outputs, but this is not new. Any "universe" is like that. If there is a physical universe, it cannot interact with an environment, because, by definition of universe, it has no environment. It contains all environments. The UD has that same property, except that we can see it as a manner to view just a set of elementary arithmetical truth.



OK. Let us look a bit more carefully at the working of the universal dovetailing. Let us consider the bijection between NxNxN and N that you gave us some posts above.
I copy and paste your bijection:

0 == (0,0,0)

1 == (1,0,0)
2 == (0,1,0)
3 == (0,0,1)

4 == (2,0 0)
5 == (1,0,1)
6 == (1,1,0)
7 == (0,2,0)
8 == (0,1,1)
9 == (0,0,2)

10 == (3,0,0)
11 == (2,1,0)
12 == (2,0,1)
13 == (1,2,0)
14 == (1,1,1)
15 == (1,0,2)
16 == (0,3,0)
17 == (0,2,1)
18 == (0,1,2)
19 == (0,0,3)
etc.

Now we can enumerate all such (i, j, k) and for each of them compute the kth step of phi_i(j).
Starting at (0, 0, 0) we compute the zeroth step of phi_0(0). This always halt, because we compute, or execute only one step of the computation. Such step are elementary operations, like erasing a memory, or adding one to a memory, or whatever. Such definition of steps are dependent of the initial phi_i chosen. The key is that a one step computation always halts. So we can proceed.
And so we go to the next triple, (1, 0, 0) and compute the zeroth step of phi_1(0), and so one.
You can memorize the last step "result", or "continuation" so that you don't do again entirely a computation already well begun. But this is not even necessary. Any universal dovetailer will execute any other universal dovetailers, and its execution, or a trace of it, will have a mandelbrot look, doing everything in a terrible redundant way. Now, assuming mechanism, that is that there is a level of description of your body/brain/environment which is Turing emulable, the UD will acces it, and this infinitely often in all computations going through your state. If we are machine, it can be shown that the physical laws are filtered and/or projected by universal numbers with respect of infinities of universal numbers.
But let us not anticipate. have you a clearer idea of what is a universal dovetailer? It is just a program which generates and executes all programs.
It cannot know what are the total and the partial programs, but it overcomes that difficulty by running them all by dovetailing, like above, on all finite pieces of execution. The UD never stops, and never output anything.
It is a sort of dreamer, except it makes all dreams, and some, the physical, are partially sharable. The UD describes a natural matrix, and I can show (but that is long and tedious) that it already exist (in some arithmetical sense) in elementary arithmetic.
Sorry its taken me so long to reply. I've re-read the thread and the first 7 steps of your paper.

I've tried explaining this to a couple of friends, and not had much luck. I can just about explain the maths but its very hard for me to relate this to consciousness and physics.

Correct me if i get this wrong. The Universal Dovetailer sort of makes sense to me - its a kind of mathematical platonia, like a mandelbrot set, that contains all computable functions including those that "crash", and all other universal dovetailers including itself, infinitely many times. It computes all steps on all data entering all programs, in an enumerable way, not necessarily going from step 0 to 1 to 2, but in a pattern tracing through all possible computations, in such a way that that is possible i.e. enumerable.

Because it contains all other dovetailers, there will be huge amounts of repetition in this structure, as it traces through infinitely many other kinds of ways of computing the same thing, or nearly the same thing, like the mandelbrot set contains infinite repetition on a theme, except that all themes are contained in the Universal Dovetailer - not just spirals! I would appreciate some clarification on why this repetition occurs, its a bit hazy.

The important thing is that this does not happen inside some other "real" universe, maths has its own reality, so time doesnt exist, other than as an image in the dovetailer. So there is no sequence in which the computation takes place, its just a structure containing all computable functions on all inputs, that exists outside of time and space in some kind of platonic realm.

OK - I'm not too sure about numbers having their own reality, but why not?
Now, assuming mechanism, that is that there is a level of description of your body/brain/environment which is Turing emulable, the UD will acces it, and this infinitely often in all computations going through your state. If we are machine, it can be shown that the physical laws are filtered and/or projected by universal numbers with respect of infinities of universal numbers.
After reading your paper, it seems its very important to understand what you mean by consistent extensions of a 1st person set of beliefs or experience.
I have found it very confusing when you talk about the infinite number of computational histories going through a 1st person.

In your paper, you explain how there is an indeterminacy in the 1st person that doesn't appear from the 3rd person. This seems relevant but I can't grasp why.

What is happening? If i was scanned into the Universal Dovetailer, what would happen to me?

And what does Turing emulable mean?

I'm finding it hard to relate the maths/logic (which I am starting to understand) to the physics/psychology...what is the physical world on this view? I keep thinking I understand it, and then it slips away again.

Another question. How is the flow of time computed by the UD?
It seems like we are only calculating the consistent extensions from all possible inputs, which is only one step (the calculation might have many steps, but the result is just one number, or crash). So how do we go from there, to calculating the next step?

Does the next step already exist in the structure? You just have to put the output as an input. That computation already exists in the UD. Have I answered my own question? The UD computes all possible histories as well as instantaneous consistent extensions?

It reminds me of Julian Barbours Platonia. Do you know his work?

Another thought - the consistent extensions, the infinity of possible comutations which could be performed on a 1st person - these extensions are not consistent because of any physical laws - you can multiple me by a million or 34, or subtract 5 from all of my atoms, an extension just has to be computable. Are you saying that all these crazy calculations exist, and then physical laws emerge later, because of the way all these extensions interact? If so how do they interact?


Again, sorry for the delay - I appreciate your patience.
Last edited by kedabra on Thu Jun 09, 2011 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:12 pm

kedabra wrote:Sorry its taken me so long to reply. I've re-read the thread and the first 7 steps of your paper.
Please, don't be sorry. It is all normal to take time, and I am happy of your kind interest. The more you are serious about this, the more time you need to get the necessary familiarity with the ideas.
kedabra wrote: I've tried explaining this to a couple of friends, and not had much luck. I can just about explain the maths but its very hard for me to relate this to consciousness and physics.
OK. I will try to explain.
kedabra wrote: Correct me if i get this wrong. The Universal Dovetailer sort of makes sense to me - its a kind of mathematical platonia, like a mandelbrot set, that contains all computable functions including those that "crash", and all other universal dovetailers including itself, infinitely many times. It computes all steps on all data entering all programs, in an enumerable way, not necessarily going from step 0 to 1 to 2, but in a pattern tracing through all possible computations, in such a way that that is possible i.e. enumerable.
OK. Actually it is a tiny part of mathematical Platonia, even a very tiny but important part of *arithmetical* platonia. But that is not important now.

Do you know the language instruction "FOR" of some programming language?
You can program the universal dovetailer like this:

BEGIN
FOR I, J, K, non negative integers,
compute phi_I(J)^K (= compute the K first steps of phi_I(J))
END

Of course "phi_i" has to be generated from a program capable of recognizing the well-formed expressions of some universal programming language. The code above is short and a little bit simplified. The key point is that the UD is given by a (finite) program, and that we might make it run in our physical universe, forever if our universe is robust enough. The necessity of the physical universe is eliminated in the 8th step.
kedabra wrote: Because it contains all other dovetailers, there will be huge amounts of repetition in this structure, as it traces through infinitely many other kinds of ways of computing the same thing, or nearly the same thing, like the mandelbrot set contains infinite repetition on a theme, except that all themes are contained in the Universal Dovetailer - not just spirals! I would appreciate some clarification on why this repetition occurs, its a bit hazy.
Because for each computable function you have infinities of ways to compute it. You can always add dummy instructions, or even write a code which on some input will compute others functions for a while, then resume the first computations. The UD generates all programs, which means also the very stupid and lengthy circumvolved way to compute functions. This can be proved formally but I think it is intuitively obvious. Also, as you mention, the UD, when run, will generate in particular all UDs. A UD in LISP will run many other UDs in LISP, but it will run also the PROLOG interpretation (in LISP) of the UDs written in prolog, and all this for *all* programming languages (we assume Church thesis).

kedabra wrote: The important thing is that this does not happen inside some other "real" universe, maths has its own reality, so time doesnt exist, other than as an image in the dovetailer. So there is no sequence in which the computation takes place, its just a structure containing all computable functions on all inputs, that exists outside of time and space in some kind of platonic realm.

OK - I'm not too sure about numbers having their own reality, but why not?
This is really the eighth step. In the seven step we do all the work, before explaining the immaterialist consequence, except that we assume some real universal dovetailing done in our universe. In such universe, the laws of physics have already to be explained by a statistics on *all* computations. This should follow from the seven first steps. I will try to see what you seem missing.

kedabra wrote: After reading your paper, it seems its very important to understand what you mean by consistent extensions of a 1st person set of beliefs or experience.
I have found it very confusing when you talk about the infinite number of computational histories going through a 1st person.

In your paper, you explain how there is an indeterminacy in the 1st person that doesn't appear from the 3rd person. This seems relevant but I can't grasp why.

What is happening? If i was scanned into the Universal Dovetailer, what would happen to me?
But you *are* scanned into the Universal Dovetailer, in the robust universe where it exists (by definition). Your state, here and now, reading this line, is some phi_i(j)^k, and the UD generates it, infinitely often, through an infinity of computations going through that (relative) state.
Normally, with the preceding steps, you know that your next state of mind is determined by all the "reconstitutions" of "your phi_i(j)^k states in the universal dovetailing (the running of the UD). The key point is that the indeterminacy does not depend on the delays made by the UD. It might take 1000^1000 steps to get some of those phi_i(j)^k, and it will provably taken more than <any-big-numbers>^<any-big-number> to get other one, but your first person state is unaware of all those delays, by the passage from step 2 to step 4. So, for predicting what you will feel in two seconds from here and now, and being exact, you have to make a statistics on an infinity of computations: all the computations going through your state (they are all done by the UD in the supposedly enough robust universe. So if there is a UD running in our universe, the laws of physics have to be reshaped into a statistics on the UD-computations.

kedabra wrote: And what does Turing emulable mean?
It mean Turing simulable, but in an exact way. This notion makes sense for the digital processes. If your consciousness can be attributed to the computation done by your brain, then you are Turing emulable. Even if your brain (that is: the portion of physical reality needed for your consciousness to exist) is really the entire galaxy, the UD will generate the relevant state (of the galaxy) if it is Turing emulable. To be sure, we don't know anything not Turing emulale in nature, except for the first indeterminacy, which occurs in self)duplication, and in quantum superposition. But this is well explained by the first person indeterminacy in self-multiplication.
kedabra wrote: I'm finding it hard to relate the maths/logic (which I am starting to understand) to the physics/psychology...what is the physical world on this view? I keep thinking I understand it, and then it slips away again.
SWIM has the same problem with the salvia experience :)

The precise link is done when you say "yes" to the doctor who proposed to you an artificial brain. You bet that you will remains conscious, despite a change of a material body. But the duplication illustrates that you have to be uncertain about your possible future, and the UD extends this duplication into a enumerable multiple multiplication. So by betting that your consciousness is invariant for a material change preserving your digital functionality at some level, physics (or anything used to predict your observation) is shown to be derivable from a statistics on the computations. This makes such an hypothesis testable, by comparing this comp-physics with real physics. It predicts that below our substitution level, there are infinitely many computations, and this is what quantum mechanics confirms with the notion of superposition of states (aka parallel universes).
kedabra wrote: Another question. How is the flow of time computed by the UD?
There are many notion of times related to the Universal dovetailing (that is, the execution of the UD). The most primitive one is the order of the computation of each phi_i(j)^k, for example. now for some i, j and k, this might represent the simulation, at some level (string theory level, for example) of the cluster of galaxies in our neighborhood. This might include a physical times, simply emulated by the UD. The psychological time of all entities is not capture by any of those simulation, but by an average on all computations, by the first person indeterminacy.
kedabra wrote: It seems like we are only calculating the consistent extensions from all possible inputs, which is only one step (the calculation might have many steps, but the result is just one number, or crash).
The UD never give any results. He does all the computations. Just by theoir cardinality, the one which counts are the infinite one. The idea of doing the computations by each step is to be sure that the UD does never stop generating and executing all computational processes. It emulates all the cellular automata patterns, for which there is no obvious notion of input and output. It is not the result of the computations which counts, but the computations themselves. Just to make it concrete, here is a pdf with a UD implemented in LISP, and some sample of running. But the comment are in French.(pdf of a concrete UD)
kedabra wrote: So how do we go from there, to calculating the next step?
Remember that in a computation, one step of a computation is a little simple, and always stopping elementary procedure, like "erase the memory 45676", or "decode 111010001100001", or copy the content of register 45 into register 23", or "if the content of register 67 is 0 go to next line of the program, else decrement register 98", etc. It always stop, so that the UD can execute and run all programs. The programs i who never stop on some input j will just ... never stop, meaning that the UD will access some phi_i(j)^k for *all* k.
kedabra wrote: Does the next step already exist in the structure? You just have to put the output as an input.
Given that there are computable composition of programs, and that this gives programs, the UD will indeed run all combination of all programs. And, yes, this exist in the pure arithmetical reality, which has a tiny part already Turing universal. Somewhere in the arithmetical truth Plato smokes some salvia divinorum, no doubt. But not all computations are easily accessible, and the physical laws are what will govern the relative accessibility among computations. first person amnesia will fuse the computations, and nature already fuse some computations (empirically we can guess that by the quantum interferences, and computationalism entails that for what happens below our substitution levels). This is not so easy to prove.
kedabra wrote: That computation already exists in the UD. Have I answered my own question?
I think you did, or are very close to it.
kedabra wrote: The UD computes all possible histories as well as instantaneous consistent extensions?
From the third person point of view, of someone looking, from 'outside' at the universal dovetailing, the consistent extension (basically the continuation of computation) are not done instantaneously (at all!). The thrid person observer might wait for 1000^1000^1000^1000 millennia before getting the next step of some programs, but from the first person point of view, by the impoosibility of being aware of the delays, its most probable continuation is given by a measure on all computations instantaneously.
I think you understand well, but that you have perhaps not yet practice enough the slef-multiplication experiences for delineating well the role of the (key) distinction between the first person view, and the (eventually purely statical) entire (infinite) universal dovetailing.
kedabra wrote: It reminds me of Julian Barbours Platonia. Do you know his work?
I have heard about the time capsules. Did he heard of my work? I dunno. What is similar is what the philosopher call the indexical conception of time. What I show, is that assuming we are digital machine, we get an indexical notion of physicalness, and this in a frame where the indexicality can be handled in arithmetic, making all things precise and making the computationalist hypothesis testable. To be sure I need also the classical theory of knowledge (of Theaetetus) to make the whole thing purely arithmetical.
kedabra wrote: Another thought - the consistent extensions, the infinity of possible comutations which could be performed on a 1st person - these extensions are not consistent because of any physical laws - you can multiple me by a million or 34, or subtract 5 from all of my atoms, an extension just has to be computable. Are you saying that all these crazy calculations exist, and then physical laws emerge later, because of the way all these extensions interact? If so how do they interact?
They don't interact, but *some* computation emulates all the computable interactions. Empirically we know (by QM) that computations can interact and does interact, but the parallel computations does NOT interact, they only interfere statistically. This is crucial in the working of quantum computer, for example, and easily explained in the comp frame. The precise link between both remains a vast unexplored field (if not still very unknown, if not ignored).
kedabra wrote: Again, sorry for the delay - I appreciate your patience.
I appreciate yours. Don't worry for the delays, platonists are patient, they can wait for big numbers of millenias 8-)
Of course, for helping the others, in this public third person consensual realm, it is nice if you tell us in advance in case you decide to make a tour in some galaxy nearby, and come back in 27 billions of years :lol:

Actually, I think that the ball is on my side. I have promised to go through each steps, especially for the benefits of some others, and I will do that soon (I will not take a tour in the galaxy nearby, before!). Thanks for your patience, kedabra, and for the patience of the edot forum members.

User avatar
kedabra
Posts: 2793
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:11 pm

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by kedabra » Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:30 am

salvialover24 wrote: Do you know the language instruction "FOR" of some programming language?
You can program the universal dovetailer like this:

BEGIN
FOR I, J, K, non negative integers,
compute phi_I(J)^K (= compute the K first steps of phi_I(J))
END
I know FOR NEXT loops in BASIC.

I only know how to program BASIC , and MAX MSP which is a visual programming language for audiovisual work (good for doing things like cellular automata, and visual feedback loops http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXPE-Bs2nu8

In BASIC, perhaps it looks like

FOR I = 0 to infinity
FOR J = 0 to infinity
FOR K= 0 to infinity
compute phi_I(J) ^K
NEXT K
NEXT J
NEXT I

Although that doesn't look like an enumerable computation to me...
Of course "phi_i" has to be generated from a program capable of recognizing the well-formed expressions of some universal programming language. The code above is short and a little bit simplified. The key point is that the UD is given by a (finite) program, and that we might make it run in our physical universe, forever if our universe is robust enough. The necessity of the physical universe is eliminated in the 8th step.
OK
Because for each computable function you have infinities of ways to compute it. You can always add dummy instructions, or even write a code which on some input will compute others functions for a while, then resume the first computations. The UD generates all programs, which means also the very stupid and lengthy circumvolved way to compute functions. This can be proved formally but I think it is intuitively obvious. Also, as you mention, the UD, when run, will generate in particular all UDs. A UD in LISP will run many other UDs in LISP, but it will run also the PROLOG interpretation (in LISP) of the UDs written in prolog, and all this for *all* programming languages (we assume Church thesis).
OK, this makes sense
But you *are* scanned into the Universal Dovetailer, in the robust universe where it exists (by definition). Your state, here and now, reading this line, is some phi_i(j)^k, and the UD generates it, infinitely often, through an infinity of computations going through that (relative) state.
Normally, with the preceding steps, you know that your next state of mind is determined by all the "reconstitutions" of "your phi_i(j)^k states in the universal dovetailing (the running of the UD). The key point is that the indeterminacy does not depend on the delays made by the UD. It might take 1000^1000 steps to get some of those phi_i(j)^k, and it will provably taken more than <any-big-numbers>^<any-big-number> to get other one, but your first person state is unaware of all those delays, by the passage from step 2 to step 4. So, for predicting what you will feel in two seconds from here and now, and being exact, you have to make a statistics on an infinity of computations: all the computations going through your state (they are all done by the UD in the supposedly enough robust universe. So if there is a UD running in our universe, the laws of physics have to be reshaped into a statistics on the UD-computations.
OK, I understand how the UD might be able to exist in a robust physical universe, and that the length of time it takes to compute my consistent extensions is not relevant to the 1st person experience, and how predicting my personal future is a statistical operation on the UD-computations. But I don't see how the laws of physics rely on statistics from the UD- computations. The laws of physics (at least, the current laws) describe the 3rd person universe, not 1st person experience. You can replicate me a million times in different parts of the universe, but the process is totally deterministic from the 3rd person. Are you expanding the laws of physics to include 1st person experience?



There are many notion of times related to the Universal dovetailing (that is, the execution of the UD). The most primitive one is the order of the computation of each phi_i(j)^k, for example. now for some i, j and k, this might represent the simulation, at some level (string theory level, for example) of the cluster of galaxies in our neighborhood. This might include a physical times, simply emulated by the UD. The psychological time of all entities is not capture by any of those simulation, but by an average on all computations, by the first person indeterminacy.
OK, maybe I was being naive about time. I see that it can be entirely relative to the 1st person.


Given that there are computable composition of programs, and that this gives programs, the UD will indeed run all combination of all programs. And, yes, this exist in the pure arithmetical reality, which has a tiny part already Turing universal. Somewhere in the arithmetical truth Plato smokes some salvia divinorum, no doubt. But not all computations are easily accessible, and the physical laws are what will govern the relative accessibility among computations.
Isn't it the other way round? the relative accessibilty among computations will lead to the emergence of physical laws? Again - assuming I'm understanding you correctly when you talk about physical laws, you mean a kind of physics which also describes 1st person experience?

first person amnesia will fuse the computations, and nature already fuse some computations (empirically we can guess that by the quantum interferences, and computationalism entails that for what happens below our substitution levels). This is not so easy to prove.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 1st person amnesia or nature fusing the computations!


From the third person point of view, of someone looking, from 'outside' at the universal dovetailing, the consistent extension (basically the continuation of computation) are not done instantaneously (at all!). The thrid person observer might wait for 1000^1000^1000^1000 millennia before getting the next step of some programs, but from the first person point of view, by the impoosibility of being aware of the delays, its most probable continuation is given by a measure on all computations instantaneously.
OK. so my next consistent extension is simply a matter of chance? So in theory, although its very unlikely, I could suddenly end up on a different planet, where aliens have made an exact copy of me, or in some galaxy where an exact copy of me just happened to exist in the same state? Would I notice something wierd happening?
I think you understand well, but that you have perhaps not yet practice enough the slef-multiplication experiences for delineating well the role of the (key) distinction between the first person view, and the (eventually purely statical) entire (infinite) universal dovetailing.
Are you saying SWIM hasnt smoked enough Salvia? You might be right. Its easy to make excuses.
They don't interact, but *some* computation emulates all the computable interactions. Empirically we know (by QM) that computations can interact and does interact, but the parallel computations does NOT interact, they only interfere statistically. This is crucial in the working of quantum computer, for example, and easily explained in the comp frame. The precise link between both remains a vast unexplored field (if not still very unknown, if not ignored).
Not sure about this, which kind of computations interact, and which don't?
Actually, I think that the ball is on my side. I have promised to go through each steps, especially for the benefits of some others, and I will do that soon (I will not take a tour in the galaxy nearby, before!). Thanks for your patience, kedabra, and for the patience of the edot forum members.
It would be a great help to go over all this again, especially for others following the thread. Did you say you were making a systematic presentation? There was a problem when you tried to send it to me on PM.

Infinite thanks!
Last edited by kedabra on Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jupe
Posts: 1766
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 10:41 am
Location: Santa Barbara

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by Jupe » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:13 pm

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030518.html


I get updates on this thread in my mailbox.......still trying to figure it out...haha

I was looking for something else and found this image, which reminded me of this thread!!

Perhaps I will psot the link in "things that remind you of salvia" as this picture does for me....the "RedGreenVines" spiral or replication...or what ever..
Last edited by Jupe on Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:45 pm

jupe wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030518.html


I get updates on this thread in my mailbox.......still trying to figure it out...haha
I am very glad you try to figure it out. I have begun an explanation in this post, but I realize that my sentences are too long (which means that I am in hurry, a bit busy). I will work on shortening the sentences tomorrow.

You might have difficulties to figure it out because we have begun at the seventh steps. We will do the steps in the right order, now. There should be no problems I think.

As soon as possible: the zeroth step, that is the definition of "digital mechanism". That is the working hypothesis: the assumption that the brain is a sort of biological machine. It is the hypothesis used by most materialist, but the conclusion will be that mechanism is not compatible with materialism. Roughly speaking: Plato is right, and Aristotle is wrong. The physical (observable) reality is the shadow, or the border, or the projection of something else.

As soon as possible 8-) because June is exams period and your servitor is a bit busy :hmm: Even my friend SWIM complains :disappointed:

User avatar
salvialover24
Posts: 1963
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:46 am
Location: Europa
Contact:

Re: Simulated Reality -

Post by salvialover24 » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:21 pm

kedabra wrote:

OK, I understand how the UD might be able to exist in a robust physical universe, and that the length of time it takes to compute my consistent extensions is not relevant to the 1st person experience, and how predicting my personal future is a statistical operation on the UD-computations. But I don't see how the laws of physics rely on statistics from the UD- computations. The laws of physics (at least, the current laws) describe the 3rd person universe, not 1st person experience. You can replicate me a million times in different parts of the universe, but the process is totally deterministic from the 3rd person. Are you expanding the laws of physics to include 1st person experience?
I think that below you get the point or get very close. It should really follow from the first six steps.

kedabra wrote: OK, maybe I was being naive about time. I see that it can be entirely relative to the 1st person.
OK.


kedabra wrote: Isn't it the other way round? the relative accessibilty among computations will lead to the emergence of physical laws?
Yes. You are right. That *is* the point. We will come back on this.
kedabra wrote: Again - assuming I'm understanding you correctly when you talk about physical laws, you mean a kind of physics which also describes 1st person experience?
Physics has to describe what is observable by people, and stable enough for us to be able to say something.


kedabra wrote: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 1st person amnesia or nature fusing the computations!
This is not so important, nor urgent. yet perhaps useful for both the working of salvia, and for an explanation of how "parallel reality" are quasi detectable (quantum mechanics), in the mechanist frame. We will come back on this. Your post put the finger on the important things, but better to begin with the review of the steps.
kedabra wrote: OK. so my next consistent extension is simply a matter of chance? So in theory, although its very unlikely, I could suddenly end up on a different planet, where aliens have made an exact copy of me, or in some galaxy where an exact copy of me just happened to exist in the same state? Would I notice something wierd happening?
Well, in some extension you might. In others you don't. But the physical laws suggests a notion of normal histories, some are more frequent than others. If you count on statistics to warm up your coffee without energy, the chance are like winning the big lottery repetitively for a *very* long period. The only point is that such statistical laws must be derived from numbers and some notion/definition/concept of person/observer.

kedabra wrote: Are you saying SWIM hasnt smoked enough Salvia? You might be right. Its easy to make excuses.
Theory without practice is like salvia without a pipe. You go nowhere. Well, with salvia also, somehow :D
kedabra wrote: Not sure about this, which kind of computations interact, and which don't?
I let you think on this one.
kedabra wrote: It would be a great help to go over all this again, especially for others following the thread. Did you say you were making a systematic presentation? There was a problem when you tried to send it to me on PM.

Infinite thanks!

The pleasure is for me. Now I feel shy and afraid to mess up the zeroth step. I need a bit more time, and I will work on it tomorrow, and we will come back on anything which might be still unclear.

Post Reply