Azamat (01)
Thanks for your comments. (The style of eloquence in that lecture in
itself seems remarkable. Looks like he could not have been reading.
Talked very fast throughout, all in one breath.Phew.) (02)
Many of us are trying to come to terms with what could be the
implications/meaning of NKS proposition, (03)
>
> Here are some initial remarks.
>
> The NKS is mostly about digital ontology, going also as digital philosophy,
>digital physics, or digital metaphysics. Its main assumption is as follows:
>
> 1. Everything in the world consists of discrete indivisible elements;
>
> 2. Reality is digital, the universe is a computational system (a universal
>Turing machine, a cellular automaton, or a quantum computer).
>
> 3. All basic laws of the universe are deteministically algorithmic, finite
>recursive programs.
>
> So the universe is a gigantic digital computer, a sort of Turing's discrete
>state machines, where entities are digital beings, and real processes are
>computational state transitions. (04)
The way I see it, is that the above refers more to an interpretation
of what the universe is. Our rational mind computes information about
the world, possibly as you describe above. Mathematics as a
representation of information that describes the world, not the world,
which is (is it?) a biological entity. Worth thinking what does
biological mean? Kind of an old discussion even: do the swarms of
insects, fish and birds and other animate and inanimate things that
exist including clouds and califlowers calculate vorteces, speed and
complex patterns when they follow their innate physical and social
dynamics? I dont think so. They just do. Science uses mathematics and
physics to explain these phenomena. I dont think the universe *is* a
computer, but a computer a possible conceptual representation of a NKS
view of the world, this is what would allows us to understand and
explain such patterns using our best knowledge to date (not sure the
above is a clear sentence though) (05)
>
> And this hypothetical proposal also comes from an old legacy controversy:
>Discrete or Continuous (as discrete particles and continuous waves), now
>Digital or Analogue.
>
> From one side you may state: the nature of the universe, its substances and
>processes, time and space, is ultimately discrete, and reality is ultimately
>resolved into discrete indivisibles (monads, computable digits, bits).
> From other side, you may assert: the nature of the universe, its substances
>and processes, time and space, is continuous, and reality is infinitely
>divisible, and never ultimately resolved into discrete indivisibles (monads,
>computable digits, bits). (06)
is that the occurrent/continuant , endurant/perdurant dilemma
creeping up again? (07)
> There is a sort of formal ontological relationship: recurrence relations
>(recurrence equations, difference equations, from Factorial n! to Ackermann
>function A(m, n), involving a recursively defined function, F: X arrow X),
>affording most complex, chaotic, and nonlinear behavior. Such relations
>accordingly involve self-similarity, when the whole is repeated in its
>infinite parts in some respects, forms, structures, etc., like fractals,
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal. Here come the new slogan, ontology is
>fractal, i.e., its fundamental structures are infinitely repeated in the parts
>of the universe. (08)
looks so looking at the pictures (09)
>
> So there is digital ontology and Digital Ontology. The former is what the
>Forum is aimed to: building formal computable ontological models of meanings
>by the agency of computing languages and systems. The latter one is all about
>studying the hypothetical digital computational nature of the world, where the
>NKS is aimed to. (010)
extraordinare, whatever the implications/meaning, helps us place
scientific thinking into context, opening up a new perspective on
things (011)
thanks a lot for helping to detangle the matass (012)
PDM
>
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:44 PM
> Subject: [ontolog-forum] meta ontological frameowork [again]
> An earlier thread started attemping to discuss the metaontological
>framework degenerated a bit, so here we go again
>
> wolfram's lecture, is a worth a watch (I did not read the book)
> Series: "Frontiers of Knowledge" last year
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU&feature=related
>
> Complex, apparently random, patterns and dynamics (as observed in the natural
>world, and human behaviours) can be better explained and understood when
>broken down to
> the appropirate level of 'primitiveness', and wonder what kind of ontology
>would represent reality as presented
>
> I like the idea of a simple underlying approach to complexity
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio,
> ****************************************
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
--
Paola Di Maio,
**************************************** (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|