Fundamental Compressionist Philosophy.

[Gerry Wolff]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Stanworth" <andrew.stanworth at bigfoot.com>
To: "casc mail list" <casc at sanna.com>
Sent: 29 April 2001 15:53
Subject: Re: Fundamental Compressionist Philosophy.

...


> Although in my original posting on this topic I
> stated that all universal computers have two elementary components, an
> output device and a switching device, in truth there is only one device,
> 'the two input-state and two output-state switch', since all fixed output
> can be reduced to a hardwired switch where both output states are set to
be
> identical.
>
> A further point of note, of which I am fully aware, is that a two-input
and
> two-output state switch is the ultimate in reductionism (i.e. the
> fundamental 'atom') in physics as well - or, more correctly, is a
different
> way of describing the same experience.  To understand this, consider that
> 'change' is the central construct around which all conceptions of our
> understanding of reality are based.  An understanding of the nature of
> change itself, directly gives rise to the concepts of matter, space, time,
> energy and consciousness.  The elucidation of this is a follows - change
> must have 'something' to change, which gives rise to the concept of
> 'matter',  matter must exist 'somewhere', which gives rise to the concept
of
> 'space', the difference between one change and another gives rise to the
> concept of 'time', the impetus which actually effects the change gives
rise
> to the concept of 'energy', the awareness of 'what' exists 'where' and
'how'
> it should be changed gives rise to  'consciousness'.
>
> Now, try asking a physicist what 'time' actually is and how it works, or
> what 'space' actually is and how that works, or what 'matter' actually is
> and how that works, or what 'energy' actually is and how that works, or
what
> 'consciousness' actually is and how that works.  I guarantee that no
> physicist will be able to deliver a satisfactory answer that defines any
of
> these concepts in and of itself, without recourse to circular reasoning -
> though they use them every day and would have no subject without them.
The
> truth is that nobody knows where these things come from, or how they work,
> or why they work.  They are just present in our experience as facets of
the
> changing environment we inhabit - our thoughts have no existence at the
> deeper level necessary to penetrate these mysteries.
>
> If we should now consider the humble concept of the 'switch', I can
> demonstrate (albeit awkwardly in such a small space) that it is also a
valid
> description of the aspects of 'change' - change must have 'something' to
> change, which gives rise to the concept of 'output', the difference
between
> one change and another still gives rise to the concept of 'time', the
> impetus which actually effects the change still gives rise to the concept
of
> 'energy', the awareness of 'what' exists 'where' and how it should be
> changed still gives rise to a rudimentary level of 'consciousness' (and
> sounds a hell of a lot like a switch to me!!) but now also allows room to
> include the concept of 'input'.  'Space', you may have noticed has been
> missed out, but this is still consequence of 'something' which is now
'input
> & output', existing 'somewhere' which is 'space'.
>

OK, I think I am beginning to get the idea. I can relate to the idea that
'change' is a fundamental concept. Although the word is not (to my
knowledge) used in information theory (Hartley-Shannon versions and
Algorithmic Information Theory), the concept of change lies at the heart of
what information is. If a stream of 'information' did not contain
discriminable changes then it would not be very informative! eg
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... (no, I haven't gone to sleep).

And I can see a connection between 'change' and the concept of a 'switch'.
After that, I start to get very hazy about how the switch might work in
computing. I would feel more able to talk about the switch if I understood
better what you have in mind. Can you point us to one or more of your web
pages where you have explained this idea and how it fits into ideas about
the nature of computing. I know from my own experience that novel ideas can
be hard to explain. The more help you can give us, the better we will be
able to respond.

....

> You are not the only respondee that seems not to want to talk about my
> switches ; )
>
> Undaunted. I would like to propose three equations:-
>
>     a) 'a functioning identifier' = 'data' + 'a system of non-identical
> output-state switches'
>
>     b) 'pure data element' = 'all outputs of a switch existing in the same
> state'
>
>     c) 'a functioning identifier' = 'a system of same-output-state
switches'
> + 'a system of non-identical output-state switches'

This is where I would need help to understand the concepts. As above, do you
have one or more web pages where you describe these ideas in a bit more
detail?

...

Best wishes,

Gerry