[eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23

[Dirk Vekemans]

So what really is at stake, apparantly,  is that the computational model
needs to be 'real', 'cause anything else is 'a source of confusion' and puts
us back to the pre-jubilant stage when we had to deal with uncertainty? A
similar move lies at the heart of the Wolfram thesis, namely that it doesn't
matter if the mathematical model isn't real, if we apply it long enough it
will become real. Perhaps my wording is a bit off, but you can check
Katherine Hayes on that, and she isn't explicitely anti-discreteness.

Otherwise i can't find anything metaphorical in mr Gogins' writing here. The
man is just stating known facts everybody else is dealing with. There is no
outside, or realm of application, to facts, afaik. They're valid, even here
in Kessel-lo, whatever i do or don't.

One should remember, for that it's still worth (and i think that's a lot to
many serious scientists) that Wolfram's and other peoples theses of
discreteness is still very much dependent on the man's business for the
impact it apparantly has, and not on a general acceptance within the
scientific community.

Personally, somehow i do not like the self-fulfilling prophesy in all that.
It reminds me of some poems i used to write. Perhaps nobody needs the
confusion, but closing your eyes to facts is no solution either.
dv
 
 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: eu-gene-bounces at generative.net 
> [mailto:eu-gene-bounces at generative.net] Namens N++K
> Verzonden: dinsdag 21 februari 2006 20:14
> Aan: Generative Art; Michael Gogins
> Onderwerp: Re: [eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23
> 
> Invoking quantum mechanics outside of its realm of 
> application is misguided. 
> 
> My point here is that, considering even scientists have a 
> *hard* time extracting metaphors meaningful enough for the 
> layman to understand it, reasoning about consciousness, or 
> philosophying by introducing quantum mechanics as a metaphor 
> is adding yet another level of fuzzyness that creates a 
> source of confusion. 
> 
> Quantum mechanics might not even be about randomness at all. 
> 
> On Tuesday February 21st 2006, Michael Gogins wrote:
> 
> > You're still missing the point.
> > The randomness in computer programs is NOT real randomness 
> -- that's why the algorithms are called "PSEUDO-random number 
> generators." This is universally accepted. The randomness in 
> quantum mechanics is most definitely real randomness, 
> however. This also is universally accepted.
> > If physical theory were based on pseudo-randomness, then if 
> you had the seed to the universal pseudo-random number 
> generator, you would be able to signal faster than light, 
> since you would be able to predict the state (after collapse 
> of the wavefunction) of nonlocal correlations better than 
> chance; perhaps perfectly, even. You would have the "key" but 
> according to quantum mechanics, there simply is no key.
> > I'm sorry, but this is truly fundamental. What's at stake 
> here for you?
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: rob at robmyers.org
> > >Sent: Feb 21, 2006 11:15 AM
> > >To: eu-gene at generative.net
> > >Subject: Re: [eu-gene] Generative or not? cubo23
> > >
> > >Quoting Michael Gogins <gogins at pipeline.com>:
> > >
> > >> I repeat, until a better theory comes along, we must go 
> with QM's 
> > >> claim of infinite true randomness and the consequent implication 
> > >> that physical reality is not computable.
> > >
> > >I do accept that QM is the currently accepted model of small-scale 
> > >reality. I'm not sure that QM can tell us anything about 
> the brain, 
> > >though: I've been unconvinced of this since Penrose's "The 
> Emperor's 
> > >New Mind".
> > >
> > >There are computational models of "intelligent" behaviour 
> that rely 
> > >on randomness to avoid the problems of brute force 
> computation, such 
> > >as Hofstadter's Copycat family of programs.
> > >
> > >- Rob.
> > >
> > >--
> > >'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who 
> am I to disagree?'
> > >To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> > >http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
> > --
> > 'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who 
> am I to disagree?'
> > To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> > http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
> --
> 'Douglas Hofstadter believes he is a strange loop, and who am 
> I to disagree?'
> To unsubscribe from eu-gene visit
> http://www.generative.net/mailman/listinfo/eu-gene
>