Does all computation generate heat?

[cloud...@gmail.com]

By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Does all computation generate heat?

(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)

- @philipthrift

[Cosmin Visan]

"Computation" doesn't exist. It is an observer-relative concept. Stepping in mud and letting your footprint there is computation if you want. Throwing a ball into the air is computation if you want. It computes the function H = ut - 1/2 gt²
I don't understand why you keep believing so easily in random concepts without analyzing them further to see if they have any meaning.

[John Clark]

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:24 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> "Computation" doesn't exist.

I'm sure everybody will find that nugget of wisdom to be enormously helpful but let me give it a try.

With reversible computing the amount of energy needed to perform a calculation can be made arbitrarily small, but only at the price of slowing down the calculation more and more. 

John K Clark

[Brent Meeker]

No.  Erasing data generates heat.  So reversible computation is, in principle,  possible without hear generation.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bruno Marchal]

Hmm… Not that simple. In the 1950s, Hao Wang has given the first proof that there exist universal machine working in a completely reversible way, without any erasing of information. Wang was a mathematical logicien, and his result was ignored. 

In 1961, Landauer, a physicist, working on the Maxwell Daemon problem, discovered that the only computational process that generates heat is the erasure. To erase 1 bit of information Landauer shows that you need to dissipate at least kTln(2) energy, with k the Boltzman constant and T the temperature. 

So, in principle, given Hao Wang + Landauer, we can build a machine doing computation without using, nor dissipating any energy, except for the start and ending of the computation.

Then, most algorithm in quantum computing require full reversibility, and should work with very few amount of energy, except similarly for the local read and write, or starting vs stopping behaviour. 

Both from mechanism and physics, I conjecture that there is a core physical reality which is a BCI algebra, which means no erasure of information, and no duplication of information. This CANNOT be Turing universal, and it is unclear to me which of erasure and duplication can be truly physical. It is just well above the scope of the present knowledge of the machine’s physics to answer this, and among physicians, this leads to discussion of black hole, non cloning theorem, etc. Open problem for me.

Of course, in arithmetic, no computation at all use energy, given that they use only the arithmetical truth, which are out of time and space, and any physical category. The physics emerge from this, as an invariant pattern for all Turing universal observation, defined by a sort of bet on first person experiences. Energy should be retrieved from that Core physics. I speculate that the Monster Group plays a role here.

Bruno

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/1/2019 2:24 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

"Computation" doesn't exist. It is an observer-relative concept.

So is "qualia".

Brent

--

[Cosmin Visan]

This is the most random affirmation that someone can make in a discussion about consciousness. It is so random that it is useless to say that qualia do exist. And qualia are observer-absolutes, since when I see red, I see red. You cannot come to me and tell me that I see blue. On the other hand, if I run a computation and say that that computes 1+1=2, you can at any time tell me that it actually computers the solution of finding the exit through a maze represented by an electron passing through an electronic circuit.

[cloud...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Does all computation generate heat?

(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)

Hmm… Not that simple. In the 1950s, Hao Wang has given the first proof that there exist universal machine working in a completely reversible way, without any erasing of information. Wang was a mathematical logicien, and his result was ignored. 

In 1961, Landauer, a physicist, working on the Maxwell Daemon problem, discovered that the only computational process that generates heat is the erasure. To erase 1 bit of information Landauer shows that you need to dissipate at least kTln(2) energy, with k the Boltzman constant and T the temperature. 

So, in principle, given Hao Wang + Landauer, we can build a machine doing computation without using, nor dissipating any energy, except for the start and ending of the computation.

Then, most algorithm in quantum computing require full reversibility, and should work with very few amount of energy, except similarly for the local read and write, or starting vs stopping behaviour. 

Both from mechanism and physics, I conjecture that there is a core physical reality which is a BCI algebra, which means no erasure of information, and no duplication of information. This CANNOT be Turing universal, and it is unclear to me which of erasure and duplication can be truly physical. It is just well above the scope of the present knowledge of the machine’s physics to answer this, and among physicians, this leads to discussion of black hole, non cloning theorem, etc. Open problem for me.

Of course, in arithmetic, no computation at all use energy, given that they use only the arithmetical truth, which are out of time and space, and any physical category. The physics emerge from this, as an invariant pattern for all Turing universal observation, defined by a sort of bet on first person experiences. Energy should be retrieved from that Core physics. I speculate that the Monster Group plays a role here.

Bruno

- @philipthrift

In the curious case of quantum computation, it seems it may be the case that there is no heat generated until a "measurement" is made.

Is that right?

- @philipthrift

[Samiya Illias]

فَلَنُذِيقَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّهُمْ أَسْوَأَ الَّذِي كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ

But We shall most certainly give those who are [thus] bent on denying the truth a taste of suffering severe, and We shall most certainly requite them according to the worst of their deeds!

[Al-Quran 41:27, Translator: Muhammad Asad]

Erasing data generates heat?!!!  

Pondering over the above quoted ayat along with the ayaat that inform us that all words and deeds are being recorded, and that Allah never does any injustice to anyone, I wonder ...  

[Brent Meeker]

Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.

Brent

[Samiya Illias]

A lifelong opportunity to invest in a wonderful eternity, and warnings to save us from the consequences of our own folly! 

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker' <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.

True, but in all fairness Christianity is also based on threats. It preaches that faith (believing in something when there is no good reason for doing so) is not stupidity but is instead the ultimate virtue, and if you don't believe in all the crap that Christianity (or Islam) says then a good and loving God will torture you most fiendishly not for 10^100 years but for an infinite number of years. I'm no saint but I wouldn't do that to a unrepentant Hitler, and yet another thing we're suposed to do is constantly flatter God by telling Him how good He is.

 The Meaning of Life: Praise the Lord

John K Clark

[Bruno Marchal]

That is right, unless you are using a special quantum algorithm which does “measurement” during the computation. But if not, then the computation corresponds to a unitary, completely reversible, process, and no heat is generated.

[Bruno Marchal]

To be slightly provocative, and short, I would say that Christanism died in 529, when the emperor Jusitinian sided with the radicals, and closed the Academy of Plato, beginning a lasting persecution of the “pagan theologian”, that is mainly the neoplatonists. 

Today they have the great help of the (strong) atheists, to mock any attempt to come back at the level of the neoplatonician rigour in the domain, which is so helpful for continuing the exploitation the people  by the states and institutions. That is when theology has been initially stolen by the “temporal power”, and that is a blasphemy and sin in any reasonable theology.

Then, many neoplatonician took refuge in the Middle East, leading to the enlighten period of what is called the greco-muslim religious era, ending, unfortunately when Al-Ghazali, won his debate against Averroes. 

Averroès defended the idea that the text(s) should be submitted to Reason, when Al-Ghazali defended the idea that Reason must be submitted to the text. 

Averroès criticised the literal reading of religious texts, against those who favoured, sometimes invoking the lack of maturity of the people, the literal reading of religious histories. Note that Maimonides seems to be the one helping the jews to fall in that literalist trap. Despite his “appreciation of Aristotle”, he kept the link with Plato’s insight.

From that point, islam will abandon science and philosophy, and enter a very dark age. To be sure, I have discovered that many christians and muslims minority schools (like the Ma”taselit, the Bektashi, …) will keep the non-literalism of Averroès (and recently, I discovered that the muslims in Albania were Bektashi, and save the Albanian jews, and many other Jews from the Nazis, confirming the universal machine theology, where “humanity" is related to rigour in theology).

The problem are not religion or theology. The problem are the pseudo-science and the pseudo religion, based on the argument per authority (like violence in particular), that we get when we try to separate them.

Bruno

[Samiya Illias]

Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way? Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be? Do you think God would need any appreciation from us? Rather, it is we who need to appreciate God! 

God created the entire creation and He governs it flawlessly according to His Laws. The entire creation submits to His Laws, except some criminals... 

The way I understand it, we, humans and snakes, are criminals who have been contained on a planet. Our collective crime is that we abused our free will to go against the Universal Laws. We have an appointment, in the Divine Court, that will be kept as scheduled. We have been given a temporal life so that each one of us can generate evidence (data: speech and deeds) for or against ourselves. 

Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to understand and consequently be pleased with God, contented to submit to His Laws and Decrees, and grateful for the guidance, looking forward to an immortal life of luxury and perhaps the most prestigious jobs anyone can ever aspire for: in service of Allah, The One and Only God, The KIng of the Mighty Throne of The Entire Creation!   

There is no compulsion to follow God's Laws, but the criminals will not be allowed to leave this planet. They will go from living upon it to living within it, in The Fire!        

Related Posts 

Samiya Illias 

Signs & Science 

 

[smitra]

What's the point of creating criminals and then to torture those
criminals for eternity in hell?

> Related Posts [4]
>
> Samiya Illias
> Signs & Science [5]

>
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker'
>> <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>

>>>> _ _Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.

>>
>> True, but in all fairness Christianity is also based on threats. It
>> preaches that faith (believing in something when there is no good
>> reason for doing so) is not stupidity but is instead the ultimate
>> virtue, and if you don't believe in all the crap that Christianity
>> (or Islam) says then a good and loving God will torture you most
>> fiendishly not for 10^100 years but for an infinite number of years.
>> I'm no saint but I wouldn't do that to a unrepentant Hitler, and yet
>> another thing we're suposed to do is constantly flatter God by
>> telling Him how good He is.
>>

>> The Meaning of Life: Praise the Lord [1]

>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

>> [2].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to
> everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list

> [2].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [3].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7sF4JzjwTg
> [2] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
> [3] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> [4] https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
> [5] https://signsandscience.blogspot.com/

[Quentin Anciaux]

Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?

But the problem of evil is not that simple.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Samiya Illias]

There is some back story to why we are here and need to be forgiven. We have been given some insights to our predicament here: 

1. Lo! We offered the trust unto the heavens and the earth and the hills, but they shrank from bearing it and were afraid of it. And man assumed it. Lo! he hath proved a tyrant and a fool. So Allah punisheth hypocritical men and hypocritical women, and idolatrous men and idolatrous women. But Allah pardoneth believing men and believing women, and Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. [Al-Quran 33:72-73, Translation: Pickthall] 
   
   
2. And (remember) when thy Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their reins, their seed, and made them testify of themselves, (saying): Am I not your Lord? They said: Yea, verily. We testify. (That was) lest ye should say at the Day of Resurrection: Lo! of this we were unaware; Or lest ye should say: (It is) only (that) our fathers ascribed partners to Allah of old and we were (their) seed after them. Wilt Thou destroy us on account of that which those who follow falsehood did? Thus we detail the revelations, that haply they may return. [Al-Quran 7:172-174, Translation: Pickthall] 
   
   
3. Those who break the covenant of Allah after ratifying it, and sever that which Allah ordered to be joined, and (who) make mischief in the earth: Those are they who are the losers How disbelieve ye in Allah when ye were dead and He gave life to you! Then He will give you death, then life again, and then unto Him ye will return. He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens. And He is knower of all things. And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not. And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful. They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise. He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names, He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide. And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever. And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers. But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful. We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein. O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me. And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me. Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth. [Al-Quran 2:27-42, Translation: Pickthall] 
   
    

To compare 50+ English translations, see https://www.islamawakened.com/index.php/qur-an 

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[cloud...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 10:18:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 May 2019, at 19:58, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Does all computation generate heat?

(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)

Hmm… Not that simple. In the 1950s, Hao Wang has given the first proof that there exist universal machine working in a completely reversible way, without any erasing of information. Wang was a mathematical logicien, and his result was ignored. 

In 1961, Landauer, a physicist, working on the Maxwell Daemon problem, discovered that the only computational process that generates heat is the erasure. To erase 1 bit of information Landauer shows that you need to dissipate at least kTln(2) energy, with k the Boltzman constant and T the temperature. 

So, in principle, given Hao Wang + Landauer, we can build a machine doing computation without using, nor dissipating any energy, except for the start and ending of the computation.

Then, most algorithm in quantum computing require full reversibility, and should work with very few amount of energy, except similarly for the local read and write, or starting vs stopping behaviour. 

Both from mechanism and physics, I conjecture that there is a core physical reality which is a BCI algebra, which means no erasure of information, and no duplication of information. This CANNOT be Turing universal, and it is unclear to me which of erasure and duplication can be truly physical. It is just well above the scope of the present knowledge of the machine’s physics to answer this, and among physicians, this leads to discussion of black hole, non cloning theorem, etc. Open problem for me.

Of course, in arithmetic, no computation at all use energy, given that they use only the arithmetical truth, which are out of time and space, and any physical category. The physics emerge from this, as an invariant pattern for all Turing universal observation, defined by a sort of bet on first person experiences. Energy should be retrieved from that Core physics. I speculate that the Monster Group plays a role here.

Bruno

- @philipthrift

In the curious case of quantum computation, it seems it may be the case that there is no heat generated until a "measurement" is made.

Is that right?

That is right, unless you are using a special quantum algorithm which does “measurement” during the computation. But if not, then the computation corresponds to a unitary, completely reversible, process, and no heat is generated.

Bruno

A related question to my original ("Does all computation generate heat?"):

Does consciousness generate heat?

@philipthrift

[John Clark]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:41 PM Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way?

No I don't think so but the religious do. When I was a grade school kid I had a Catholic catechism that I was suposed to study, it was a series of questions and answers. One of the questions was "Who made me?" and the answer of course was "God made me", that one didn't bother me but even the next question did "Why did God make me?" I had been taught that God was the prime mover, God was the ultimate reason for everything, but if God did things for a reason then obviously He can't be the ultimate reason; and the answer to that stupid question bothered me even more. It came in 3 parts:

1) to know Him

In other words to believe He exists, and the less evidence there is that He does the more virtuous the belief. At the time I couldn't figure out why this would be a good thing and I still can't, it seemed more like a good definition of stupidity. And besides if an omnipotent being wanted to convince me He existed He certainly could. The fact that He didn't must mean He didn't want me to believe He existed.  

2) To love Him

I was told I sure as hell had better love Him because if I didn't a good and loving God would fiendishly torture me for an infinite number of years; and that is the sort of line I'd expect from a human huckster trying to convince me to swallow their particular brand of religious snake oil and is not something I'd expect from a being who was great enough to create the cosmos. 

3) To worship him, sometimes stated as to serve Him.

So I'm supposed to believe the primary motivation of God, the Prime Motivator, is to get more flattery. Even ignoring the obvious logical contradiction, if that  was a person's primary motivation (as it is for Trump for example) it would be considered very small minded, but for a omnipotent omniscient being it's utterly ridiculous.   

 

> Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be?

Yes, I know exactly how great God is. 42. 

 

>  Do you think God would need any appreciation from us?

I certainly don't think a omnipotent omniscient being, if such a thing could exist, would be interested in our obsequious flattery, but religious people think differently and that's why they go to houses of worship once a week to brown nose God and hope all the flattery will convince Him to give them stuff, things that range from a better parking space to driving the infidels into the sea.  

> Our collective crime [...]

Speak for yourself, I've committed no crime. That's another hallmark of religion, trying to make people feel guilty for existing. Well I don't feel guilty even if one of my ancestors did eat an apple when told not to, and if God doesn't like it God can lump it. 

 

> [...] is that we abused our free will

 

Free will? What in the world does that mean?

> to go against the Universal Laws.

I'm not a perfect person but I always obey Universal Law; for example in my entire life I have never once violated the commandment to conserve angular momentum. 

> Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to [...]

The religious believe that repeatedly declaring that God is sooo big and sooo strong and sooo super nice helps you to keep that super nice being from sticking you into a torture dungeon for eternity. But I don't believe that, I believe the God described in the Bible or the Koran is far more evil than the Satan as described in those books because nothing, absolutely nothing, is more evil than torturing somebody for eternity, not even if it's for the crime of eating a apple when told not to.

 John K Clark

 

[Bruno Marchal]

On 3 May 2019, at 04:41, Samiya Illias <samiya...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way?

Yes, []f does not implies f, in G (terrestrial reality)

Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be?

After Gödel, we understand that we have no idea how the arithmetical is. It is beyond all effective theories. It requires axiom if infinities, and an infinity of them, to get a bit of light on it.

 Do you think God would need any appreciation from us?

Us, the terrestrial being (effective) beings? No, of course. But “us” can be taken in some other senses.

Rather, it is we who need to appreciate God! 

Yes. If only to avoid the possible crash, if possible.

God created the entire creation and He governs it flawlessly according to His Laws. The entire creation submits to His Laws, except some criminals… 

How come?

With mechanism, it might be different.

God created the natural numbers, and saw it was good,

Then he told to the numbers “add yourself”, and saw it was good,

Then he told to the numbers “multiply yourself”, and he said: oops!

And he lost itself in a labyrinth of dreams, waking up from time to time, but enjoying the infinite many way to encounter itself, recognising itself, or not, …

Justice (the good) requires truth (the god), but truth cannot avoid the injustice, even in arithmetic. It is up to us to minimise the pain, and the harm. 

The way I understand it, we, humans and snakes, are criminals who have been contained on a planet. Our collective crime is that we abused our free will to go against the Universal Laws. We have an appointment, in the Divine Court, that will be kept as scheduled. We have been given a temporal life so that each one of us can generate evidence (data: speech and deeds) for or against ourselves. 

We just feel superior from time to time, we fool ourselves, we confuse the truth we thing we found with the one that we search, ...

Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to understand and consequently be pleased with God, contented to submit to His Laws and Decrees, and grateful for the guidance, looking forward to an immortal life of luxury and perhaps the most prestigious jobs anyone can ever aspire for: in service of Allah, The One and Only God, The KIng of the Mighty Throne of The Entire Creation!   

Lao-ze is closer to the universal machine. To give a Name to God is blasphemy. With the universal machine, just to say “I believe in god” is a blasphemy, although it can be simply corrected by domain typing, and localisation, but then it is not the big unnameable ONE, of course.

There is no compulsion to follow God's Laws, but the criminals will not be allowed to leave this planet. They will go from living upon it to living within it, in The Fire!        

Yes, but we shouldn’t confuse our own judgement with the judgement of God, and only God can judge if someone is a criminal or not. We can only judge/evaluate if some neighbours threat our life or not. 

We can’t teach virtue, except by examplar behaviour. We cannot claim the truth.

Bruno

[Bruno Marchal]

On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?

But the problem of evil is not that simple.

Indeed.

But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.

With provable(p) written []p

consistent(p) = ~provable(~p) = <>p

f = false, t = true

consistent = ~[]f = <>t = consistent(t),

Gödel’s second I. Theorem, put in equivalent version:

<>t -> ~[]<>t

<>t -> <>~<>t

<>t -> <>[]f

It is that last one where the clue is the more apparent:

Said by PA, or ZF, or any sound Löbian machine: it says the following:

If I am consistent, then it is consistent that I am inconsistent

Or

If I am consistent then it is consistent that I will prove a falsity

Peano arithmetic, or ZF, remains consistent when adding the axiom that they are (respectively) inconsistent.

Loosely, this says:

If shit does not happen, shit might happen.

This might be part of the shadow explaining the origin of evil ([]f) in the internal states realised in arithmetic.

Bruno

PS Exercise; show that Gödel’s theorem (in its modal form) is just Löb’s formula with p replaced by false( f).

Solution: Löb’s formula is []([]p -> p) -> []p, 

with p = f, this becomes

[]f([]f -> f) -> []f

Which is, as ~p = (p -> f), obvious by truth table of ~ and ->.

[](~[]f) -> []f

By transposition (using the fact that p -> q is equivalent with ~q -> ~p), we get

~[]f -> ~[](~[]f), or,

by using ~[]p = <>~p, and ~f = t, or ~~p -> p.

<>t -> <>([]f)

[Brent Meeker]

Political control.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/3/2019 6:06 AM, John Clark wrote:

> Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to [...]

The religious believe that repeatedly declaring that God is sooo big and sooo strong and sooo super nice helps you to keep that super nice being from sticking you into a torture dungeon for eternity. But I don't believe that, I believe the God described in the Bible or the Koran is far more evil than the Satan as described in those books because nothing, absolutely nothing, is more evil than torturing somebody for eternity, not even if it's for the crime of eating a apple when told not to.

I've always found it interesting that what God forbade, and what Satan encouraged, was acquiring knowledge, in this case "the knowledge of good and evil".  Exactly what a despotic ruler (or priesthood) would want to reserve to himself, the exclusive ability to define what was good and what was bad.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

Conscious brains generate more than unconscious ones.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 5/3/2019 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?

But the problem of evil is not that simple.

Indeed.

But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.

With provable(p) written []p

consistent(p) = ~provable(~p) = <>p

f = false, t = true

consistent = ~[]f = <>t = consistent(t),

Gödel’s second I. Theorem, put in equivalent version:

<>t -> ~[]<>t

<>t -> <>~<>t

<>t -> <>[]f

It is that last one where the clue is the more apparent:

Said by PA, or ZF, or any sound Löbian machine: it says the following:

If I am consistent, then it is consistent that I am inconsistent

Notice however that this assumes you know what t and f are.  In the formalism they are just markers that are invariant under the rules of inference.  In the semantics they refer to some model.  Beware of the priest who tells you he knows the real model.

Brent

[Samiya Illias]

The Quran states The Deen-e-Qayimah (الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ) in three ayaat. It is generally translated as The Correct Religion, but I have come to realise that a more literal translation is The Standing Law. The following are the three laws which though we are free to choose to not to obey, we have been warned of the consequences:   

Note: I have taken the liberty to edit the translations according to my current understanding: 

إِنَّ عِدَّةَ الشُّهُورِ عِندَ اللَّهِ اثْنَا عَشَرَ شَهْرًا فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ يَوْمَ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ مِنْهَا أَرْبَعَةٌ حُرُمٌ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ فَلَا تَظْلِمُوا فِيهِنَّ أَنفُسَكُمْ وَقَاتِلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ كَافَّةً كَمَا يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ كَافَّةً وَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الْمُتَّقِينَ

Indeed, the number of months with Allah is twelve months in the book of Allah [from] the day He created the skies and the earth; of these, four are sacred. That is the standing law, so do not wrong your Nafs during them. And fight against the polytheists collectively as they fight against you collectively. And know that Allah is with those who keep their duty. [Al-Quran 9:36]

مَا تَعْبُدُونَ مِن دُونِهِ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءً سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ أَمَرَ أَلَّا تَعْبُدُوا إِلَّا إِيَّاهُ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

You worship not besides Him except [mere] names you have named them, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. Legislation is not but for Allah. He has commanded that you worship not except Him. That is the standing law, but most of the people do not know. [Al-Quran 12:40]

فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ حَنِيفًا فِطْرَتَ اللَّهِ الَّتِي فَطَرَ النَّاسَ عَلَيْهَا لَا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ اللَّهِ ذَٰلِكَ الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

So direct your face toward the law, inclining to truth. [Adhere to] the fitrah (separation) of Allah upon which He has created separated [all] humans. No change should there be in the creation of Allah. That is the standing law, but most of the people do not know. [Al-Quran 30:30]

---------------

فَأَقِمْ وَجْهَكَ لِلدِّينِ الْقَيِّمِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن يَأْتِيَ يَوْمٌ لَّا مَرَدَّ لَهُ مِنَ اللَّهِ يَوْمَئِذٍ يَصَّدَّعُونَ

مَن كَفَرَ فَعَلَيْهِ كُفْرُهُ وَمَنْ عَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَلِأَنفُسِهِمْ يَمْهَدُونَ

لِيَجْزِيَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِنَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الْكَافِرِينَ

So direct your face toward the standing law before a Day comes from Allah of which there is no repelling. That Day, they will be divided. Whoever disbelieves - upon him is [the consequence of] his disbelief. And whoever does reform - they are for themselves preparing, That He may reward those who have believed and done reformative deeds out of His bounty. Indeed, He does not like the disbelievers. [Al-Quran 30:43-45]

---------------

وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ حُنَفَاءَ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَذَٰلِكَ دِينُ الْقَيِّمَةِ

And they were not commanded except to worship Allah , [being] sincere to Him in religion, inclining to truth, and to establish prayer and to give zakah. And that is the standing law. [Al-Quran 98:5] 

---------------

I have discussed The Deen-e-Qayimah (الدِّينُ الْقَيِّمُ) has been discussed in The Right Religion (Deen) and other posts. 

--

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:25:50 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

No.  Erasing data generates heat.  So reversible computation is, in principle,  possible without hear generation.

Brent

That is basically it. Landauer demonstrated that information loss results in lost energy, internal energy or waste heat. This does not mean there is no thermal energy if no information is lost or erased, but that there is no change in such. The entropy of a quantum system with density matrix ρ is S = -k Tr[ρ log(ρ)]. The unitary transformation ρ = U^†ρU can be applied to this Shannon-von Neumann formula and shown it is invariant. It is easy, just take the Taylor series for the log. So quantum computer that do not suffer decoherence are reversible and produce no heat. Once photons come blasting out of there then bets are off.

I sort of follow Bruno below, and I concur with the statement the Fischer-Griess Monster group is important. It is important for a quantum error correction code. Its connection to moonshine, say with the Brunier-Kent-Ono partition theorem etc, that the monster is associated with all realizable number theoretic computations. Quantum numbers then have a Gödel number representation, say as prime numbers or zeros of the Riemann zeta function, and all possible errors computable may be ciphered by the Monster. Susskind has this idea of entangled black holes, but realistically such an entanglement must be highly partitioned into partial entanglements across some cosmic or inflationary landscape. This partition would obey the Brunier-Kent-Ono partition theorem, which its approximate solution as the Hardy-Ramanujan formula gives the density of states for strings and with black holes reproduces the Bekenstein formula. 

LC

 

On 5/1/2019 1:56 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

Does all computation generate heat?

(Should be a simple enough question, I think.)

- @philipthrift

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 3 May 2019, at 20:17, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 5/3/2019 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 3 May 2019, at 14:06, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pleasure for the all loving god to have creatures to torture ?

But the problem of evil is not that simple.

Indeed.

But note that just the second theorem of Gödel provides a clue.

With provable(p) written []p

consistent(p) = ~provable(~p) = <>p

f = false, t = true

consistent = ~[]f = <>t = consistent(t),

Gödel’s second I. Theorem, put in equivalent version:

<>t -> ~[]<>t

<>t -> <>~<>t

<>t -> <>[]f

It is that last one where the clue is the more apparent:

Said by PA, or ZF, or any sound Löbian machine: it says the following:

If I am consistent, then it is consistent that I am inconsistent

Notice however that this assumes you know what t and f are.

No, that is not assumed. t and f are only boolean constant. In the arithmetical interpretation, you can take any simple theorems of your (Church-Turing universal) theory (that you are supposed to believe in). Usually t is interested by “1=1” and f by “~(1=1)”. But in the combinators t is interpreted by K and f by KI.

With digital mechanism, just to define what is a digital machine, we need some acknowledgement on elementary arithmetic, for which we do have a notion of truth, indeed made mathematically precise by Tarski. In the usual mathematical sense, and not definable in arithmetic, like all good notion of god should be.

  In the formalism they are just markers that are invariant under the rules of inference. 

Yes, except that here they correspond to direct conclusion of the logical rule. Now “1” is represented by "s(0)” (or its Gödel number), and what you say will apply to all symbols, or symbols of symbols. The interpretation is in the truth, that is here is the stantard model of arithmetic (the structure (N, 0, s, +, x). 

Your remark applies also to brain and (physical or not) realities.

In the semantics they refer to some model. 

Exactly.

Beware of the priest who tells you he knows the real model.

Exactly. 

The universal machine which knows that she is universal say no better, indeed.

Bruno

[Brent Meeker]

Above you are telling us the standard model of arithmetic is the real model.

Brent

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/E6E28BF8-EF23-41B2-854E-CE40A49874C3%40ulb.ac.be.

[Philip Thrift]

Derrida would deconstruct arithmetic and bring nonstandard numbers out from the margins.

(WWDD)

@philipthrift

[Bruno Marchal]

Like everyone. In this case, the standard model can be shown to be the least model, and the intersection of all models. Nobody believe in non standard natural number, as they are infinite. Non standard natural number can be used in non standard analysis, but all the understanding on “non standard” makes precise sense in arithmetic, because we do have a good intuition of what the standard numbers are.

Keep in mind that a non standard model contains all the standard numbers 0, 1, 2, …, plus infinite objects which have infinitely any predecessor (transitively). 

Keep in mind that we assume computationalism. In the non standard model of arithmetic, addition and multiplication are already NOT computable. 

The understanding of the natural numbers corresponds to the standard model. But “finite” is not a first order property, so we can’t define the natural numbers entirely in first order logic, and the non standard model is a mess due to that restriction. The standard model can be defined in analysis, as much well as any limit of a Cauchy sequence.

The standard model is the intersection of on what everybody agree on the natural numbers. It is taught in primary school. You need to learn a bit of mathematical logic to even grasp the notion of non standard numbers, and that requires also the understanding of standard numbers.

Bruno

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e9dd3dd1-299e-3929-fde7-b3dfcc6e452a%40verizon.net.