compiseverythng ([info]compiseverythng) wrote,
@ 2005-11-18 05:28:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Dreaming of Computation
I woke up dreaming about computation, infinity, and finiteness.

I think it might be more interesting to talk about this dialectic than the one the book is ostensibly about. At least to me it would address more directly the questions I have. The dialectic would be finite universe, infinite universe, and gnarly computation. I’m in the middle of chapter five of Rudy’s book and I realize that he has shied away from discussions of infinity in favor gnarly virtual infinities.

Last night in class Rudy was touching on some philosophical objections to intelligent computations. I brought up the notion that the objections were all “Western” philosophical objections, that I think from a non-dual Zen perspective very little objection would be raised to the idea that everything is a computation. Actually, I might go so far as to say that with a little reshaping everything is a computation is Zen. Let me explore what I think that reshaping looks like.


  • Separation: Rudy tends to look at computations a separate things rather then the One universal computation

  • The Uncomputed: Zen appeals to the unmanifest, that which stands behind the One computation. The space in between Cn and Cn+1.



I think that is about it.


(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]hfx_ben
2005-11-21 05:29 pm UTC (link)
Statements like "The dialectic would be finite universe, infinite universe, and gnarly computation." stop me cold ... sometimes simple statements can mean a lot more than what's on the surface but, ummm ... if there isn't a structural integrity to the proposition then, well ... what is to be done?

"from a non-dual Zen perspective very little objection would be raised to idea that everything is a computation."
Heck, I'd like to encounter even 1 substantial objection to the idea, Zen or otherwise!

<=== groked "everything is computation" years ago
<=== yesterday evening was tumbling "documents are transforms"

"rather then the One universal computation"
In parallel processing, are there many seperate computations or just one big one? I suspect there's a semantic confound at play here. Remember always that concepts are conveniences, relative conventions ... the actuality is ineffable, yes?

"Zen appeals to the unmanifest, that which stands behind the One computation."
Are you certain "unmanifest" is the term you want here? I'd describe it, rather, as that which manifests unobstructedly.

"The space in between Cn and Cn+1."
*blink*
You talking madhyamika?

Ok ... but it includes Cn and Cn+1, yes?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]compiseverythng
2005-11-22 04:41 am UTC (link)
Statements like "The dialectic would be finite universe, infinite universe, and gnarly computation." stop me cold ... sometimes simple statements can mean a lot more than what's on the surface but, ummm ... if there isn't a structural integrity to the proposition then, well ... what is to be done?

You always catch me in my laziness. In Rudy’s book the thesis is that we can construct a lifebox, the antithesis is that no we can’t because we have a soul, and the resolution is the seashell as symbol of gnarly unpredictable/irreducible computation. I was saying that this dialectic was more interesting to me as finite vs. infinite with resolution in gnarly.

Heck, I'd like to encounter even 1 substantial objection to the idea, Zen or otherwise!
Well the rub is in defining substantial I think. It is particularly hard when I substantially agree. One possible objection is the entanglement problem of quantum mechanics. I think this is substantial but I have my own pet theory, discussed occasionally in the blog, e.g. this morning, as to why. I.e. I don’t think we can separate anything, and all definitions are infinite. And one I suspect you will object to the substantiality of and certainly I do not believe, the objection that we have an immortal soul that is separate from and unidentifiable with the physical universe. A like objection is that God is outside of the universe and that He does not obey our trivial computations; he does whatever he damn well pleases. Rudy’s definition of a computation is a finite set of steps, and finiteness is itself an objection.

Are you certain "unmanifest" is the term you want here? I'd describe it, rather, as that which manifests unobstructedly. Well, what ever words we try to put on this we know that they will be inadequate so I don’t want to try to debate this one. However, I believe we mean the same thing.

madhyamika? I don’t know very many of the Buddhist terms. I don’t know what this is. Ok ... but it includes Cn and Cn+1, yes? Without doubt, it must included the end points. However, there is no test for this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hfx_ben
2005-12-06 03:52 pm UTC (link)
Sorry I reverted to my old bad habit of mis-spelling that word.

As for what it means ... google is our friend, yes?

"madhyamaka, a nice little article in the Western Buddhist Review.

I gotta run ... more on this thread real soon.

p.s. thinking about your stuff last night; isn't "computation" really a type of transformation?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]redslime
2005-12-06 04:06 pm UTC (link)
I think you are limiting transform. The key definition of computation here is that it is a finite process. In mathematics we are quite comfortable in talking about transforms that involve infinities, and hence infinite processes, e.g. taking a limit. One can argue about there being computational equivalents of these infinite transforms, but that is beside the point when talking philosophy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hfx_ben
2005-12-06 04:17 pm UTC (link)
" that is beside the point when talking philosophy."
Ah.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
transforms
[info]compiseverythng
2005-11-22 04:46 am UTC (link)
<=== yesterday evening was tumbling "documents are transforms"

Sure, but the trick is the figure out where to cut off the infinite regress so that a substantially correct transform can be executed.

And doing it by machine, *thhheeesss*? Though problem. But within domains it should be doable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: transforms
[info]hfx_ben
2005-12-07 07:19 am UTC (link)
"figure out where to cut off the infinite regress"
Oh? Who sez /who/ makes that decision? Who sez it need be made? Who sez it's an option?

With respect: this is abstracted ... actualities make naught their presence felt / known in this ... so it seems absurd, though it is not, in reality.

"doing it by machine, *thhheeesss*?"
I'm sorry, but you've gone from abstruse to eccentrically cryptic ... are you sure you're trying to com-municate?

"Though problem."
A second typo?

"within domains it should be doable."
Are we ever outside of domains?

(Reply to this) (Parent)
objection to everything is a computation
[info]compiseverythng
2005-11-24 04:55 pm UTC (link)

see, http://www.livejournal.com/users/compiseverythng/11596.html

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: objection to everything is a computation
[info]hfx_ben
2005-11-24 05:15 pm UTC (link)
thanks for the link

I do wish you were a bit more conversational, though ... I'm thinking about giving up on LJ entirely ... like talking to walls.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: conversational?
[info]compiseverythng
2005-11-24 05:48 pm UTC (link)

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean responding to posts/replies in a conversational manner? If so the problem for me is a matter of time.

It is a lot of work to formulate even conversational responses, and when I have made off the cuff remarks it seems to create niose because it seems writing is more in need of explicit context than is speech.

It might be interesting to create a 'blog' tool that allowed one to put contextual comments into the blog in a way similar to how comments can be placed in a MSWord document.

The result would rather than having a page replies trailing down the page you would mouse over a highlighted comment and it would pop up or you could select an new context to view the comment. The would be nested just as replies are now, but context would always be maintained.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: conversational?
[info]hfx_ben
2005-11-24 06:31 pm UTC (link)
" Do you mean responding to posts/replies in a conversational manner?"
Ummmm ... there's an alternative meaning?

<=== confused

Yaa, time ... busy-ness ... this summer connected with the sorta guy that by rights I should partner with ... we've had coffee 1ce since July ... on such as this do I base my analysis of social pathology.

"when I have made off the cuff remarks it seems to create niose because it seems writing is more in need of explicit context than is speech."
Ah-ha.
*blink*

"It might be interesting to create a 'blog' tool that allowed one to put contextual comments into ..."
heh ... and here I am, silly old goat, talking about "Participatory Deliberation" as a system that would enable and support contextualized discourse. heh ... such a stuhned aulde fool I am.

See that's the thing about vending-machine mentality ... notions are treated as objects and dead-cliches (where there is a summoning of no subjectivity, no "limbic resonance") unless the individual somehow gets the feeling that they've created the notion, in which case the egoic drives kick in and there's (suddenly?) time and energy a--plenty. End result? The death of collaboration ... a world of solipsists.

meh ... and so it ends with a whimper.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: conversational?
[info]hfx_ben
2005-11-24 06:33 pm UTC (link)
By "here I am, silly old goat, talking about "Participatory Deliberation" as a system that would" I mean that this is precisely what I've been drilling through for almost two years ... but nobody's ever had 1 moment to ask about it ...

Such is life in a world filled with vending machines.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: conversational?
[info]compiseverythng
2005-11-24 08:01 pm UTC (link)

<=== confused

What do you want to be asked about it?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: conversational?
[info]hfx_ben
2005-11-24 08:08 pm UTC (link)
"A system to support and enable discourse? Neat ... sounds good ... how would that work?" seems like a plausible display of authentic interest. (This should by rights be in one of our personal LJs, I think.) And that's the thing: "busy-ness" is never actually a sufficient reason for lack of response; authentic interest (like when it's an ego or money thing) always manifests.

cheers

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…