Replies

Everything that exists is algorithmic information. A rock, a tree, a cloud of hydrogen atoms floating in interstellar space, space itself. If algorithmic information implies "design", then your definition of "design" is meaningless since everything that exists in all possible spaces is "designed" by definition.

Again, the assertion, tortoise: "Everything that exists is algorithmic information." It should be obvious to you that "everything that exists" is also something more than algorithmic information -- even given the case that your assertion is true. The reduction to algorithm in the sense you seem to indicate would drain all the life out of the world, leaving only a sterile machine in its wake. Life itself would become reduced to an abstraction.

I haven't given a definition of "design." But if I were to do so, it would not take the form: "everything that exists in all possible spaces is 'designed'... for that would not be a definition of design, rather it would be an (implicit) definition of "tautology." Any definition defines. The question is whether the definition is "any good" as a description of reality.

You do seem to give a definition, of Universe: the Universe is that which is specified by/reducible to an algorithm. And as for this result, it really doesn't seem to matter much in what "very strict sense" you are using the word "algorithm." Now it seems the Invariance Theorem applies to correlated movements of points in mathematical spaces; But life is more than movement in mathematical spaces, correlated or otherwise....

This -- life -- is the part you always seem to want to drop out of view. Notwithstanding, the fact that there is an invariant character to such correlated movements indicates a universal behavior; and if the behavior is universal, this suggests it cannot have arisen by accidental means.

Or so it seems to me, for whatever it's worth to you; and I suspect that approaches zero at the speed of light.

Small is different: Computer simulation tools explore the nanoworld
eureka alert/Georgia Institute of Technology ^ | 17-Feb-2005

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1346147/posts
Posted on 02/18/2005 10:47:36 AM PST by ckilmer

Contact: David Terraso david.terraso@icpa.gatech.edu 404-385-2966 Georgia Institute of Technology

Years ago, when Uzi Landman and his colleagues set out to uncover some of the rules that govern why a non-reactive metal like gold acts as a catalyst when it is in nanoclusters only a few atoms in size, they didn't sit down in a lab with the precious metal. Instead, they ran computer simulations and discovered that gold is a very effective catalyst when it is in clusters of eight to two dozen atoms. They also found that electrical charging of gold is crucial to its catalytic capabilities. Six years later, the team has verified their earlier predictions experimentally, and they stand ready to further explore environmental effects on catalysis.

This practice of partnering computer simulations with real-world experiments is becoming more vital as scientists delve deeper into realms where the actors are measured on the nanoscale, Landman told a group of scientists Thursday, February 17 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"Small is different," said Landman, director of the Center for Computational Materials Science and professor of physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "We cannot use the way physical systems behave on the large scale to predict what will happen when we go to levels only a few atoms in size. In this size regime, electrons transport electricity in a different way, crystallites have different mechanical properties and gold nanowires have strength twenty times larger than a big bar of gold, and inert metals may exhibit remarkable catalytic activity. But we know the rules of physics, and we can use them to create model environments in which we can discover new phenomena through high-level computer-based simulations."

Computers are constantly becoming more powerful and capable of conducting more detailed explorations at the same time scientists across the globe are increasing their interest in the science of the small. The intersection of these two trends, said Landman, is allowing scientists to investigate realms that are too small for today's technology to explore experimentally.

It's not just a matter of making faster calculations, he said. "Experimentally, we can't always go down to the resolution we need to see, explain and predict things, but with computer simulations we can go to any resolution we need," said Landman. "Therefore, you can ask questions, deeper questions, on how materials behave on the small scale, even if you can't get to that fine resolution experimentally."

This doesn't mean that experiments aren't necessary, said Landman. "It's a supplementary and complimentary approach. The pillars of scientific methodology are composed now of experimentation, analytical theory and computer simulation."

In addition to their work on nanocatalysis, Landman and colleagues have used simulations to explore other phenomena, such as the possibility of producing and maintaining a stable flow of liquid on the nanoscale. Their models predicted that it is possible to produce liquid jets only six nanometers wide. To date, in collaboration with Landman's theory group, there are teams of engineers building nozzles that can produce jets in the 100 nanometer range. Within one year, said Landman, they expect to produce "nanojets" in the 10 nanometer range.

"The opportunity to make new discoveries in ways that weren't possible before is an incredible gift and it has come about only because we can now simulate environments on the computer that are either not yet possible, too expensive or too dangerous to do in the lab," said Landman. "We are now at a point in history where the science of the small holds the promise of producing a windfall of scientific discoveries. Computers serve tools for discovery in this exciting adventure."

And this is why nothing is ever accomplished with these threads.

Betty boop, every time I try and make you commit to anything with consequences, you immediately retreat into fuzzy handwaving semantics that have no business in a rigorous discussion, and which sometimes betray a gross ignorance of the very thing you are opining about. You cannot have your cake and eat it too; you accept certain things as "reasonable" but then reject things that necessarily follow with handwavy metaphysical comments that do not even belong in meaningful discussion about technical matters. Indeed, it appears the only acceptable axiom when having a technical discussion with you is whatever vaguely philosophical notion you feel fit to put to paper. You've made it abundantly clear that mathematics is something that can be cast aside on whim, especially when it comes into conflict with some other deeply held belief of yours. Given the choice between the Betty Boop axioms and the axioms of mathematics, I'll take math, no offense intended.

I guess the bottom line is this: Do you accept mathematics, or don't you? You cannot assert its truth when convenient for you, and then deny its applicability or play ignorant of its fundamental tenets when it might harm your assertions. It is an all or nothing thing. Ignorance of mathematics is no excuse either -- if you are not prepared to address the technical issues raised, then it is probably not a good idea to make sweeping assertions about them.

I often don't agree with Alamo-girl's interpretation of math, but I will also grant that she does not reason in circles such that I have to make the same basic easily verifiable mathematical points over and over and over. She may move on to other creative interpretations, but she usually recognizes an issue if I make an effort to explain it. Discussions with you are awfully circular, and I do not see any progress being made.

By the way, I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to the Invariance Theorem. Try wikipedia for the super-short version, though lacking any explanation of its implications.