• Ultimate Reality

  • Classical Spheres, Division Algebras, and the Illusion of Quantum Non-locality:

"Order can -- and demonstrably does -- come from disorder.

It's an empirical fact."

No there is no demonstration that order can come from disorder. The transformation of disorder into order is not an empirical fact. What is a fact is that the use of the word 'disorder' is not being used to mean disorder. Obviously your 'disorder' had order. That order existed in the form of previously having all means necessary to become changed into a more recognizable, to us, orderly way.

James Putnam

John,

"It seems to me you can have entirely deterministic processes, with ultimately random input."

Of course you can.

"I'm still not convinced the desire for a universal initial condition isn't more a consequence of our needs, than nature's. LeMaitre stated as much."

It never was otherwise. Lemaitre asked if the universe had ever been at rest -- in a relativistic universe one has to respond, "at rest relative to what?" The necessity to specify an initial condition, therefore, is built into the assumption of relativity, as a continuum of space with time. Under the assumption of quantum cosmology, time is at rest relative to space (the time parameter t = 1 is assumed in every quantum interaction) while the classical rest state is undefined in general relativity (the theory blows up at the singularity of creation).

If the universe is fundamentally probabilistic, there is still the necessity to specify an initial condition, because whatever random quantum vacuum fluctuation brought the universe into existence, it did so with probability 1. But from what range of equally likely events? A probabilistic universe makes no more sense at the cosmological initial condition, than the singularity of general relativity.

Now -- if none but classical randomness (50-50 probability of existence) obtains from the cosmological initial condition to the present -- Joy Christian's framework answers the cosmological problem. Existence and non-existence are equally likely. Nature chose existence.

Best,

Tom

Fine Tom, as long as you cop to having acted inappropriately. As for something appropriate that was deleted:

Non-computable numbers and unbuildable machines have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is Joy's results which are clearly computable since the algorithm is spelled out in the equations he has published, and these algorithms can be run on real world computers, all of which are completely deterministic.

I will challenge your opinion when I do not agree with it. *That* is what this blog is all about. I hope you find the strength to address the challenges on a non-emotional basis.

Rick

"I hope you find the strength to address the challenges on a non-emotional basis."

That's a two-way street. And you can leave our president out of it, he has enough problems.

The facts of what I wrote still stand -- Chaitin's number is not uncomputable (though algorithmically incompressible), it is a random continuous function, and it cannot be transported between machine languages.

The relevance to Joy's simulation is suggestive evidence that the simulation of a (deterministic, non-random) continuous function is a continuous function. Remember, the simulation has built-in randomness.

If it were the case that random input (the ThrowDie function) could not be programmed with the same result in other varieties of program code, the evidence would go the other way -- that noise makes a difference in the measurement of quantum correlations. Joy's framework is not only strong enough to stand up against random noise, it gets the same results as experiments that seek to mitigate noise interference.

Tom

Tom,

"Ordered chains of paper clips will form with probability 1, given sufficient paper clips and energy input."

Getting back to the subject of the meaning of disorder. Presumably it is accepted that disorder means lack of order:

Your claim is that the means for the paper clips to by chance become strung together did not exist while in the bag?

James Putnam

James,

Call unlinked paper clips disordered. Call a bag of unlinked paper clips a totally disordered state. Shake the bag and call that energy input to the totally disordered system. Then count the number of paper clips forming ordered chains, and you get a measure of order from disorder.

Your question: "Your claim is that the means for the paper clips to by chance become strung together did not exist while in the bag?" -- is a non-starter, because there is no prior probability for the paper clips to form an ordered chain. My example is strictly empirical.

Tom

Tom,

Recognizing your high skill level, I will risk treading into dangerous waters:

Tom: "The facts of what I wrote still stand -- Chaitin's number is not uncomputable (though algorithmically incompressible), it is a random continuous function, and it cannot be transported between machine languages."

Me: The inability to be transported between machine languages results from the un-program-like arrangement of program steps of a particular computer language, which makes no sense in that language, cannot be replicated in a different computer language? The computability part results from an existing probability that the first steps of the careless arrangement might be executable by a computer? These are questions and not answers.

James Putnam

Tom,

"(the theory blows up at the singularity of creation)"

" A probabilistic universe makes no more sense at the cosmological initial condition, than the singularity of general relativity."

All of which further supports the question of whether an initial condition is a valid supposition. Beginnings, as well as endings, are only evident as markers of time units. The question always arises; What came before, as well as; What comes after.

If we were to treat time as an effect of action, then the whole process of beginnings and endings is integral to the present state, as forms coalesce, evolve and dissipate. There is certainly enough evidence that the current cosmology is enough of a patch job, that in any other situation would garner significant skepticism, but this need to pin our arrow of time to some greater framework gives it significant psychological support.

James,

What is order and disorder? Consider it in the relationship of signal to noise. Now obviously, what is signal to one, could be noise to another. Any sound, light, radiation, mass, etc. will have some structure, delineation, bounds, etc. So in that sense, everything could be considered ordered. Yet if you were to try and perceive the entire spectrum of information, energy, evidence, form, order, etc, it would overlap and cancel out to white noise, thus losing the order of any particular observer. So order requires, not just form, but a frame of reference, not to be just random noise. Order is both content and context. Randomness is content without context.

Regards,

John M

"The facts of what I wrote still stand -- Chaitin's number is not uncomputable (though algorithmically incompressible), it is a random continuous function, and it cannot be transported between machine languages."

That is debatable.

Please refrain from incorrectly using the phrase "machine languages" when you are actually meaning "high level languages" such that knowledgeable people can understand you.

The operation of real world computer programs is completely deterministic. Any portability issues between high level languages is thus completely deterministic, and can be remedied by modification of the procedures of the implementation in the high level language (bug fixes) or in the compiler procedures to have them behave in identical fashion. It is completely possible to retool *any two compilers for two different high level languages* to result in the exactly the same native machine code, for *any codeable algorithm*.

The example I gave previously was the fact that there can be no truly random "random number generator", there can only be a pseudo random number generator in a deterministic system. This is almost universally done with PN codes, with the emphasis on plural. The implementer of the compiler has two choices, code run length and seed, where seed is the initial value when the program begins execution. There are other implementation issues that especially come into play when the sample count is made large in an effort to minimize the impact of the pseudo random nature of the number generator used, being related to round off and truncation errors. These can create result differences between implementations, but they once again, are fully deterministic and thus repairable, and have absolutely nothing to do with any mysterious characteristics of the process being modeled. If one is ignorant of what goes on under the hood so to speak, they may fall prey to assigning something magical or mystical to the process independent of its natural and factual reality, much like our predecessors did with eclipses.

It is nice that several people have verified Joy's conclusions with several high level languages, but there is no revelation of something significant in this fact as to his algorithm. If it did not come to be I would consider one or more attempts were suspect. There is no "there" here.

Rick

Here is an example of what I mean about noise-mitigating efforts in quantum systems. The assumption of quantum entanglement that drives research in quantum computing is forcing researchers to re-think their strategies about containing noise to get pure states -- toward quantum discord which deals with non-entangled quantum states and noise input becomes something of an asset toward realizing pure states:

"We showed that, starting from a maximally entangled state, the quantum correlations display different decaying behaviors, depending on the nature of the considered noise. In particular, Markovian environments lead to a monotonic decay, while in non-Markov regimes sudden death and revival phenomena are present, in agreement with previous results in the literature."

So we may not have to wait much longer, before computational necessity drives the community to reject even quantum discord in favor of Joy Christian's classically derived quantum correlations.

Tom

Hi John,

We appear to not be speaking of the same things:

"...not to be just random noise. Order is both content and context. Randomness is content without context.

Noise is not random. With a properly designed filter one will receive data containing organized patterns of changes of velocities of an object or objects. Randomness does not contain direction or meaning or it is not randomness. Disorder, in the sense that I am using it, means no cooperation or coordination. I do not limit my description to isolated levels. Tom's paper clips may be describable on appearance as being disordered in the bag, but the resulting chain links are due to a more fundamental level of order that deterministically affects the arrangement of the paper clips. it was there in the paper clips while still in the bag. If either cooperation or coordination, even in potential form, exists then order exists. Either disorder is the opposite of order or there is no such concept as disorder.

James Putnam

Sure, Rick, high level language is fine with me. I don't live in the software engineering community.

My real point is, that discrete numerical implementation of a program depends on the soundness of arithmetic. To a pencil and paper mathematician, that is not a problem because we are believers in the primary orderliness and predictability of the number line. If that order is not secure in any high level language, we may be doing mathematics all wrong -- analysis, not natural numbers, may be created by "God," to borrow from Kronecker's metaphor.

"The operation of real world computer programs is completely deterministic. Any portability issues between high level languages is thus completely deterministic, and can be remedied by modification of the procedures of the implementation in the high level language (bug fixes) or in the compiler procedures to have them behave in identical fashion. It is completely possible to retool *any two compilers for two different high level languages* to result in the exactly the same native machine code, for *any codeable algorithm*."

Not Chaitin's, to my knowledge. The program outputs different results according to the high level language running the algorithm. It's paradoxical, because the algorithm is deterministic and the output isn't.

I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote. I reserve my opinion on whether the replication of Joy's framework has further signficance than cross-verification.

Best,

Tom

James,

"With a properly designed filter one will receive data containing organized patterns of changes of velocities of an object or objects."

Isn't that context derived?

"Randomness does not contain direction or meaning or it is not randomness."

It is noise.

"Disorder, in the sense that I am using it, means no cooperation or coordination."

Lack of supporting context.

"describable on appearance as being disordered in the bag, but the resulting chain links are due to a more fundamental level of order that deterministically affects the arrangement of the paper clips."

In one context, disordered, in another, ordered. Signal to one, noise to another.

"Either disorder is the opposite of order or there is no such concept as disorder. "

Disorder is when order breaks down, but then order of another frame is asserting itself. The real issue here is whether there is some universal frame by which everything is ordered, or is it inherently subjective. The only apparent universal frame is absolute zero, at which point, it isn't even white noise and there is nothing to order. Flatline.

Regards,

John M

John,

Ok I see we are definitely not speaking of the same meanings. No noise is random. Every bit of it consists of meaningful data about changes of patterns of an object or objects. No order exists in disorder. The relative sense in which you seem to me to be placing both randomness and disorder clearly fall outside of the points that I am making. To be clear, neither randomness nor disorder are relative. If either are described as being relative, then, I say that it is neither randomness nor disorder that is being described.

James Putnam