Re: computability, what computers can do

Bruce Edmonds (B.Edmonds@MMU.AC.UK)
Fri, 15 Sep 1995 10:00:24 GMT


Don Mikulecky, MCV/VCU, Mikulecky@gems.vcu.edu writes:
> reply to Bruce:
> What you seem to be saying is that if we include outside entities
> (man, factories, etc.) we can see computers building themselves.
> No problem there! ANY non-compuitational component turns a machine into a
> complex system on the right hand side of the modeling relation.

This is not quite what I am suggesting, so I will try to make myself
clearer (I wish! - true self-organisation?).

I am suggesting that in the realm of information and software only
inside the "computer environment", there is the possiblity that a
form of "life" *might* evolve. For this to happen the evironment has
to be "sufficiently rich", with the pre-life building blocks. These
could well be produced partly as a result of error, design, and the
side-effects of interacting designed processes. Once this stage is
reached the environment could be closed off and life emerge and
evolve purely internally.

The fact that hardware errors will continue to happen, the software
environment will increasingly inter-act with the "real" world through
sensors and effectors, that humans will continue to produced highly
inter-active programs with unforeseen side effects (e.g. computer
"viruses"), etc. etc. will only make this event more likely.

Yes, I know this means that I *think* (this is not a fixed position
of mine, only my current view) that there is no fundermental
*theoretical* difference between this and "reality", and you do. In
*practice* however, I think we are much closer. I am what I call a
"pragmatic holist", in that I see us humans as limited beings
(probably more (as well as differently) limited than *formal*
systems/computers (not *real* embodiments of formal systems (don't I
just LOVE brackets))) being, in practice, unable to produce formal
models of many things (many organims, life itself?, ...), unable
(EVER) to actually decompose many complex systems into simple
sub-systems etc.. Thus I heartely agree with the practical
conclusions of such as Rosen that we need to consider many more
tools, other than merely those considered acceptable by the classic
hard-science tradition.

I will deal in another post with arguments about corollories of
Goedel/Chaitin etc., the difference between analogue/digital, as
well as my view of TRUTH (as for me (a pragmatist), such practical
considerations and considerations of truth are not seperate). I just
wanted to make my position clearer (for you, but also myself!).

----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html