vol 7: Notes
2000
Site map
Directory
Search this site
Home
1: About
2: Synopsis
3: Development
Next:
Previous: Notes 2000: Toc
... to restore theology to the mainstream of science
[Notebook NAKEDICAME, DB 53]
[Sunday 19 November 2000 - Saturday 25 November 2000]
[page 96]
Sunday 19 November 2000
Monday 20 November 2000
Tuesday 21 November 2000
Wednesday 22 November 2000
model03TransNet
model04Simplicity
[page 97]
The RCC is a pathetic scam by the ruling classes on the poor designed to keep them in their place. Science is part of the individual result of this power.
1 Turing machine can compute the aleph(0) operations necessary to make a new permutation of N. However, due to cardinal arithmetic, aleph(1) Turing Machines are necessary to create all aleph(1) permutations of N, in order to create the lowest order R1 = aleph(1) of the reals.
Since a computer is defined by its program, and we can consider a program simply as an ordered set of symbols, we can imagine each of our aleph(1) computers having programs which are one of the aleph(1) permutations of the natural numbers. So we have a satisfactory duality of aleph(1) computers defined by the aleph(1) permutations of N, each of which is responsible for creating one of these aleph(1) permutations of the natural numbers. Details of the behaviour of such a system will be discussed under the heading of physics. (A finite implementation of a similar structure is Tierra. Ray.)
[page 98]
Having got from aleph(0) to aleph(1), can we now go on with the next step of an inductive argument by showing how to go from aleph(n) to aleph(n+1), n > 0. How do we construct the computing power necessary to get this job done? The answer is via meaning. What we need are aleph(n+1) machines each capable of permuting sets of cardinal number aleph(n).
The basic insight is this. Although N is infinite in its content of natural numbers, the set, like its name N is a discrete finite entity. By dealing with N we can be said to be dealing with every n is a member of N, not as an individual, but as cardinal number, ie a set of units without regard to identity or order.
So instead of our aleph(1) computers permuting the aleph(0) natural numbers, n, these computers may operate on aleph(0) sets of whatever cardinality by manipulating their names, that is their abstract representation. We allow aleph(0) names. So far we have made no
[page 99]
progress, since aleph(0) * aleph(n>0) = aleph(n>0)
Abstraction by itself is not enough. What is also required is communication. We are familiar with the internet and computer networks in general. A Turing machine may be designed to take a calculation to a certain point and then stop and await instructions from an outside source. Depending on the information received, it will take a certain decision in its calculations.
How different such instructions can a machine receive - aleph(0), but each of these instructions may be received at any one of the aleph(0) steps in the computation, so that we have aleph(0)aleph(0) different paths from one permutation to the next, = aleph(1).
Each of these paths may send an instruction. Since we have aleph(1) computers, this gives us aleph(1)aleph(1) = aleph(2) different permutations of the computational paths,
The networking process has both introduced
[page 100]
a network of causal linkages between our computers, but also guarantees that the aleph(1) computers each performing a computation with a variety of aleph(1) can communicate to create aleph(2) processes.
What we are saying is that by linking the computers, we both multiply the computations and unify the system at the same time, so the thing grows by permutations feeding off permutations. Now to write this out in an intelligible manner.
Thursday 23 November 2000
Another day of slavery in the hot sun to fuel the dream. The charge now is to get into religious profit very soon and out of labouring.
Friday 24 November 2000
Veltman 17: "This plague, having to abandon Lorentz invariance in order to define the formalism, seems common to all approaches
to quantum field theory. One always needs some kind of grid." Veltman.
So is gravitation = Lorentz invariance the grid, ie the space, the pigeonholes of physics, and do we see gravitation as a direct consequence of set theory, setting up the universe in which an infinity of Turing machines doing their business in a way which we describe by quantum mechanics? We come here to quantum computation.
CU -> TU [Cantor Universe to Turing Universe] Hopefully we will get a bit more sense out of the TU when we start to map it onto physics.
Naked I Came: The English Philosopher John Locke ( ), following Aristotle, postulated that the human mind at its birth is a tabula rasa. Aristotle wrote 'What the mind thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet which bears no actual writing de Anima. Aristotle, 429b32. If we define an individual mind as the totality of the individual's personal experience, the postulate follows almost automatically - no experience, no mind.
[page 102]
Different experiences of life produce different minds,
This model resembles the ancient concept of mental growth, the recursive creation of more complex processes. Hussey, 350. The beauty of the present picture is that is points toward the road to mathematical rigour in out understanding of our environment. The next step is to introduce matter into the model, page n.
For my money the fundamental fact shaping the modern (ie last five thousand years is) world is the increasing length and pervasiveness of communication channels, that is channels of value. This network began as trade routes.
Saturday 25 November 2000
The effort is to produce a totally coherent (= flat) picture, but in fact the world comprises patches of flatness (deterministic processes, eg inertial frames) connected by
[page 103]
bearings (differentials, motions) to give an overall curved manifold. This situation exists (?) at all scales.
Books
| Aristotle, On the Soul, Parva Naturalia, On Breath (translated by W S Hett) , Harvard University Press (USA) ; William Heinemann Ltd (UK) 1975 'What the mind thinks must be in it in the same sense as letters are on a tablet which bears no actual writing; this is just what happens in the case of the mind.' page 169 (Book III, chapter 4, 429b32) Amazon back |
| Hussey, E L, " Heraclitus of Ephesus" in Ted Honderich The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press 1995 Amazon back |
| Veltman, Martinus, Diagrammatica: The Path to the Feynman Rules, Cambridge University Press 1994 Jacket: 'This book provides an easily accessible introduction to quantum field theory via Feynman rules and calculations in particle physics. The aim is to make clear what the physical foundations of present-day field theory are, to clarify the physical content of Feynman rules, and to outline their domain of applicability. ... The book includes valuable appendices that review some essential mathematics, including complex spaces, matrices, the CBH equation, traces and dimensional regularization. ...' Amazon back |
Click on an "Amazon" link in the booklist at the foot of the page to buy the book, see more details or search for similar items
Related sites:
Concordat Watch
Revealing Vatican attempts to propagate its religion by international treaty
