- I think we've already established a perfectly identicle clone(s) is impossibly

unless they are intricately synchronized like permanently entangled particles,

so while one is on the dark side of the moon the other feels cold, and the

converse. Which seems to be outside even the forseeable nanoscale manipulation

of the physical world.

On the other hand things are good enough for the task at hand. If you (for fun

I'll say your name is Tim Buck) and go to sleep on Approximate Clone Airways on

a trip for TimBuckTimesTwo (half price special), wake up on the plane on the

overnight (maybe the clone maybe the original) and while it's a budget airlines

instead of quantumly identical food, they feed you nowhere near identical

cheerios with nowhere near identical (on a quantum scale) milk, they will fill

you up just the same because on a molecular or higher macro level it's 'good

enough'. Hell even feeding one Wheaties and the others Fruit Loop might not

cause enough of a divergence to matter. Not even die hard chemists bake

cookies (at home at least) measuring moles of flour, chocolate, butter, etc

according the Better Homes & Products Stoichiometric Cookbook. Since the

physical world is roughly homogenous. Within some unknown timeframe your clone

will be likely to like the same music as you do, have the same tastes in food

as you do, suck (or rock maybe?) at dancing as you do, so that swapping or

synching wouldn't be that difficult. At least to the point that if you had the

choice of death, or picking up like you were just dropped off at the airport

from ACA airlines stop with no real memory of the last few months, feeling a

little different from the clone/upload process...er jet (future?) lag, it still

be good enough for most people, it'd certainly be no worse than those comatosed

patients that come back after a decade or so.

Troy

=====

Troy Gardner -"How you live your seconds, is how you live your days, is how you live your life..."

http://www.troygardner.com -my world, philosophy, music, writings.

http://www.troyworks.com -consulting & training in Flash, Java, and C#

http://www.intrio.com -helping bridge the gap between the humans and machines. Home of the Flickey� - On Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:21 PM, Chris Phoenix wrote,

Re: [bafuture] Re: [LA Futurists] Re: [la-grg] Physical Immortality, DNA, and Computers

>I haven't had time to even look at Wolfram's book. Can someone tell me

Chris, CA's are not restricted to deterministic local transition functions. Probabilistic transition functions are completely acceptable. Basically any Hausdorf endomorphism can be constructed as a CA.

>briefly whether he encompasses the random events of quantum mechanics

>with deterministic CAs?

*******************************

Michael F. Korns

1 Plum Hollow Drive

Henderson, Nevada 89052

(702) 837-3498

mkorns@...

www.korns.com

www.InvestByAgent.com

*******************************

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > I haven't had time to even look at Wolfram's book. Can

Mila and I went to Wolfram's talk months and months ago,

> someone tell me briefly whether he encompasses the

> random events of quantum mechanics with deterministic

> CAs?

and I meant to write up a summary of the talk, but I never

did so. So, for the benefit of everyone wondering what

Chris is asking about, I'll give a quick summary.

Stephen Wolfram has done extensive experiments with

one-dimensional "cellular automata". He was doing research

in mathematics, and discovering how complex patterns could

arise from what seemed like simple rules. So he decided to

try to find the absolute simplest case possible and study it.

In these one dimensional cellular automata, you start with

a row of cells. Each cell is either "on" or "off", or black

or white. The very first row starts off with every cell

off, except one.

To form the next row of the cellular automata, you use the

cell directly above it, and one cell to each side. So each

cell in the next row depends on 3 cells from the row above.

The new color is determined by the rule you are using for

mapping the old cells to the new.

But what is the rule? It turns out there are only 256

possible rules. The reason for this is that there are each

cell depends on 3 cells above it. Those 3 cells can each be

on or off -- 8 possibilities. And for each of those 8

possibilities, the new cell can be either on or off -- 256

possibilities.

Here, Wolfram discovered something remarkable. With certain

rules, starting with a single "on" cell, he could produce

non-repetitive patterns of ever-increasing complexity. He

discovered all sorts of mathematical patters, such as a

cellular automata that calculated the prime numbers. He

discovered that one rule -- called Rule 110 -- is

computationally complete. That is, with Rule 110, you can

make any arithmetic calculation. At least in theory -- in

practice, knowing how to convert your calculation to

binary, and reduce all the arithmetic operations to

combinations of arithmetic primitives, and knowing where to

start and stop running the cellular automata can be quite

daunting! However, if you think about it, performing

boolean logic operations is what every digital computer

does, and yet they are able to calculate square roots and

logarithms and just about everything else. Wolfram goes on

to demonstrate how he ran represent the Turing Machine

using cellular automata. The Turing Machine is the

theoretical mathematical foundation for all modern

computers, created by Alan Turing in the 1950's.

In the rest of his "big book" Stephen Wolfram describes the

posibility that the laws of physics themselves might

operate by "simple rules" and thus the universe itself

might be a sort of cellular automata running simple rules.

He discribes network node substitution rules which can, for

example, explain why the universe has 3-dimensional space,

instead of some other number. It can be created as a side

effect of the number of other nodes each node in the

network connects to. Then, with "simple rules" (analogous

to Rule 110), you get a universe from which infinite

complexity arises from a single point. He is able to

demonstrate how particular cellular automata rules

demonstrate conservation of particular quantities -- which

can be analogous to conservation of energy, or conservation

of mass -- which is important for physics. In addition, the

effects of Einstein's Relativity can be achieved by making

the universe update in a sequential, rather than parallel,

way. It just seems parallel to us because, for example, I

can't tell that you've been updated until *I've* been

updated.

Of course, while he is doing all this, Wolfram shows how

cellular automata patterns are similar to many forms in

biology and even in human art. He is not the first person

to observe the similarity between mathematical images

(typically called fractal art) and biological systems and

human art.

Nor does Wolfram tell us what the rules that govern the

universe are. However, he has demonstrated that it's

possible, and given scientists some idea what to look for.

Wolfram Science website

http://www.wolframscience.com/

Now, to answer Chris's specific question about whether

Wolflam encompasses the random events of quantum mechanics

with deterministic CAs?

In quantum physics, physics has given up trying to predict

things exactly and only predicts the probabilities of

events. For example, an equation will tell you the

probability of seeing an electron with spin up. But it

won't tell you whether any particular electron is spin up.

Wolfram does not see the randomness of quantum mechanics to

be much of a problem. CA's easily exhibit enormous apparent

randomness. Wolfram shows how it's possible to create CA's

that exhibit enormous apparent randomness and also be

reversible, obey the laws of thermodynamics, and

relativity. A CA on the planck scale would easily have

tremendous apparent randomness.

What is more of a problem for Wolfram is Bell's inequality,

which is the basis for the quantum effect of "non-locality"

or "entanglement". This happens, when, for example, you

have two photons emitted from the same source, and

measuring the polarization of one constrains the result of

measurement of the other, and not by hidden properties

inside the photons, but by some sort of "instantaneous

communication". This "instantaneous communication" doesn't

violate Einstein's relativity, which dictates that

information can't be transmitted faster than the speed of

light, because it can't be used to transmit information.

Wolfram says there could be a causal relationship between

the observers, rather than the photons. For example the

universe could be set up in such a way that there is a

cause and effect relationship between the people who set up

the angle of the polarization filters used to measure the

polarity of the entangled photons so that the result of the

experiment is just right for the experimental result to fit

Bell's inequality. Wolfram considers this possibility

rather contrived. He hypthesizes that the network may have

other topological possibilities. In other words, the way we

measure distance is by traversing the network (using a

photon or electron) from one point to another, but perhaps

this is not the only way of traversing the network and the

entanglement traverses a different path.

--- Chris Phoenix <cphoenix@...> wrote:> If identity means never differing at any time in the future,

__________________________________

> then this

> is unknowable for any two objects, except in theoretical

> exercises that

> allow an omniscient observer. The trouble is the speed of

> light.

> However much information you have, you will not know what

> photons are

> outside your observation volume, ready to come in and disturb

> your

> variables.

>

> In computer science, we can imagine ...11011011011011... but

> even there

> we can't build it. (Turing machines have infinite memory; no

> computer

> does.)

>

> Also, as long as quantum events are truly random, you never

> know when

> e.g. a nucleus will decay in one object and not in another.

> (Has anyone

> ever entangled radioactive atoms and seen whether their decay

> becomes

> correlated?)

>

> I question the utility of a criterion with such a stringent

> definition

> that it can never be applied with certainy in the real world.

> It

> depends on what you're using it for, of course, but if you

> want to make

> statements about the real world, you're likely to be dividing

> by zero or

> assuming spherical cows.

>

> I haven't had time to even look at Wolfram's book. Can

> someone tell me

> briefly whether he encompasses the random events of quantum

> mechanics

> with deterministic CAs?

>

> Chris

>

> Michael Korns wrote:

> >

> > On Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:29 PM, Troy Gardner wrote:

> > Subject Re: [bafuture] Re: [LA Futurists] Re: [la-grg]

> Physical Immortality, DNA, and Computers

> >

> > >Even without parrallel universes assuming the laws of

> physics and thus the

> > >possible operations/movements of matter/energy from one

> state/moment to the

> > >next are relatively uniform, a) within short windows of

> time/change for more

> > >flexibile entities or b) much longer for sufficently

> developed or at least

> > >stable entity/identity (meaning that which makes

> them..them, the thoughts,

> > >feelings, approaches to problems, temperment), there will

> be enough momentum to

> > >not change that much from a clone of it in any other part

> of space. i.e. From

> > >my psycology books nature versus nurture chapture example

> where identical twins

> > >which have been raised separately end up choosing very

> similar occupations,

> > >spouses, hobbies and the like despite having different

> parents raise them,

> > >different schools, to the point that it it probably would

> not be that hard if

> > >'swapping places' to feel happy. Or alternately put they

> have similar vectors

> > >(similar goals?) but dissimilar paths they follow that

> correspond to the

> > >dissimilar environments.

> >

> > Troy, it sure looks to me like you have a good point.

> Furthermore; since Jessica is asking for mathematical proofs,

> perhaps we might use Wolfram's New Kind Of Science concept of

> the Universe as a giant cellular automata.

> >

> > In a simplified combination of the classic book, Flatland,

> and Wolfram's book, A New Kind of Science, suppose we have a 1

> dimensional binary cellular automata universe, called

> Binaryland. Suppose Binaryland is configured as follows:

> >

> > a.. ...110110110110110110110110...

> > As we can see every third point in Binaryland has equivalent

> environmental variables.

> >

> > Michael

> >

> > *******************************

> > Michael F. Korns

> > 1 Plum Hollow Drive

> > Henderson, Nevada 89052

> > (702) 837-3498

> > mkorns@...

> > www.korns.com

> > www.InvestByAgent.com

> > *******************************

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> >

> >

> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> > bafuture-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

> --

> Chris Phoenix cphoenix@...

> http://xenophilia.org

> Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (co-founder)

> http://CRNano.org

>

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

http://calendar.yahoo.com> Basically any Hausdorf endomorphism can be

As far as I know, Wolfram's work involves only

> constructed as a CA.

CA's with deterministic transition functions.

What's a Hausdorf endomorphism?

--- Michael Korns <mkorns@...> wrote:> On Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:21 PM, Chris Phoenix wrote,

__________________________________

> Re: [bafuture] Re: [LA Futurists] Re: [la-grg] Physical

> Immortality, DNA, and Computers

>

> >I haven't had time to even look at Wolfram's book. Can

> someone tell me

> >briefly whether he encompasses the random events of quantum

> mechanics

> >with deterministic CAs?

>

> Chris, CA's are not restricted to deterministic local

> transition functions. Probabilistic transition functions are

> completely acceptable. Basically any Hausdorf endomorphism can

> be constructed as a CA.

>

>

> *******************************

> Michael F. Korns

> 1 Plum Hollow Drive

> Henderson, Nevada 89052

> (702) 837-3498

> mkorns@...

> www.korns.com

> www.InvestByAgent.com

> *******************************

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

http://calendar.yahoo.com- On Monday, June 09, 2003 12:15 AM, wayne radinsky wrote,

Subject: Wolfram's CA work

>> Basically any Hausdorff endomorphism can be constructed as a CA.

Yes, this is true. Wolfram's work was very limited in scope compared to Codd's and others work in the late sixties. However, there is no reason that CA's must be limited to deterministic transition functions. Many others have studied these kind of spaces. Finally, I liked your summary of Wolfram's work. I thought it summed things up nicely.

>>

>As far as I know, Wolfram's work involves only

>CA's with deterministic transition functions.

>What's a Hausdorff endomorphism?

Sorry, Jessica said she wanted a pure math proof. Perhaps I got carried away. Gee, that has never been known to happen before :-)

Felix Hasudorff (1868-1942) did some interesting and seminal work in topology which abstracts mechanical systems like CA's. Basically Hausdroff studied functional spaces (spaces whose elements are functions) using open sets (abstract circles) to create a distance metric comparing one function to another. Such open set metrics are the initial beginnings of abstract topology.

An endomorphism is a function mapping a space into itself. CA's are mechanical systems which map the configuration space for a set of cells back into other elements of the same configuration space. Hence all CA's are endomorphisms of some kind.

Hausdorff's work can be abstractly related to CA's if one defines an open set (abstract circle) as the set of all cellular configurations which contain a definite local pattern for some set of local cells. So for every possible set of local cells and every possible definite pattern in those local cells we have just defined an open set.

Deterministic CA's produce sequences of Hausdorff open sets. This is because any open set, by definition, contains a local collection of cells with a definite pattern. Regardless of the configuration of other cells, the CA's local transition function will map onto a new cellular configuration with a definite pattern in the specified local cells in some restricted neighborhood of the original set of cells. By definition, this set of points will also be a Hausdorff open set.

Nodeterministic CA's are somply the union of multiple deterministic CA's based upon some probability distribution.

I simply pointed out that any Hausdorff endomorphism can be constructed as a CA.

You may want to Google any one of the following:

1.. Hausdorff Metric function

2.. Hausdorff Completeness Theorem

3.. Hausdorff Convergence

4.. Abstract Topology

Here is a very good introductory link: http://www.cut-the-knot.com/do_you_know/Hausdorff.shtml

Here is a general link: http://www.math.binghamton.edu/dept/topsem/00-01.htmll

Michael

*******************************

Michael F. Korns

1 Plum Hollow Drive

Henderson, Nevada 89052

(702) 837-3498

mkorns@...

www.korns.com

www.InvestByAgent.com

*******************************

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]