Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Randomness and free will
Message-ID: <jqbDMoJwI.8Mt@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <DMBo00.7A@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4f7oah$ec0@news.cc.ucf.edu> <DMDB10.2A5@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <4f8gvi$gru@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:36:18 GMT
Lines: 50
Sender: jqb@netcom15.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:170866 comp.ai:36972 comp.ai.philosophy:37669 sci.philosophy.meta:24633

In article <4f8gvi$gru@nntp4.u.washington.edu>,
Gary Forbis  <forbis@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>In article <DMDB10.2A5@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>|> Clearly, the number of states is not sufficient by itself (how about a wall
>|> executing WordPerfect?) to achieve a required input-output correlations.
>|> The issue however is that the phase space is vast enough to make arguments
>|> about a need of QM effects void.
>
>I seem to be perpetually on the verge of an insight I cannot quite put to words.
>Since it seems second hand I am in no haste to bring it up.  None the less
>I will try to do so now.
>
>Suppose one is considering the tiling of a surface (or the filling of a space)
>by the method Penrose dubbed "quasicrystals."  Now the shapes you have chosen
>can be arranged in a way that sometimes several meet at a point.  There is
>always a continuation in the tiling but the choices made in the past affect
>the choice one can make in the future and do so in a way that is at best
>partially predictable.  After tiling a portion of the surface (or filling the
>space) one looks at those points where several tiles meet and marks these
>locations.  
>
>Suppose one has another set of tiles that can fill the surface or space but in
>a different way.  Is it clear what properties these tiles will need to ensure
>we can find solutions where the same points can be located?  I know that if
>one can build the original tile shapes from components of the new tiles one
>can locate the same points but is there a way to find the same points using
>alternative tile sets whose size approximates the originals?
>
>It seems to me there is a possibility that the phase space might be on the
>right order but unable to be mapped to the original.

There are non-universal Turing Machines.  In fact, one can devise a Turing
Machine that is almost universal but not quite.  The latter would seem to be
"on the right order" but unable to be mapped to the original.  Does this fit
what you are getting at?

Or, there are DNA sequences that are very similar to those that can produce
functioning humans, but fail to produce them (or produce humans that never hit
certain points), etc.  The number of states is not the only issue.  "The devil
is in the details."

>I know this isn't fleshed out.  Right now I lack the ability to flesh it out
>and it is possible that if I had the ability to do so I would see the error
>in even considering this line.

Perhaps it has insufficient explanatory value to be worth worrying about.

-- 
<J Q B>

