Thanks for your reply, Lester.

The position I'm discussing is not yet
accepted by others.

I'm just working to bring itforward.

So, you should feel no 'need' with
respect to it, one way or the other.

I have Verified it all the way down to
individual 'atoms', however.

It will withstant all Tests.

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:31:49 GMT, "k p Collins"
kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Lester.

The position I'm discussing is not yet
accepted by others.

I'm just working to bring itforward.

So, you should feel no 'need' with
respect to it, one way or the other.

I have Verified it all the way down to
individual 'atoms', however.

It will withstant all Tests.

Rather than quibble over the balance of the post, Ken, check out the
definitions just posted on the Apocalypse Now thread and see if they
don't make my position on the subject of reversibility clearer.

Regards - Lester

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4026d276.37031275@netnews.att.net...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:31:49 GMT, "k p Collins"
kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Lester.

The position I'm discussing is not yet
accepted by others.

I'm just working to bring itforward.

So, you should feel no 'need' with
respect to it, one way or the other.

I have Verified it all the way down to
individual 'atoms', however.

It will withstant all Tests.

Rather than quibble over the balance of the post, Ken, check out the
definitions just posted on the Apocalypse Now thread and see if they
don't make my position on the subject of reversibility clearer.

Regards - Lester

Your premise is False.

"P", "Q", "sense", "nonsense", Etc. in your other
post, only have existence in representational forms.
It requires the doing of work to instantiate the
representation. And, in the doing of this Neces-
sary work, the net dynamics are, in fact, =never=
the same. [Except, probably, for the Universe as
a whole, and, then, only at stereotypical universal
energy-flow thresholds.]

This holds, of course, even with respect to so-
called "binary" machines. It's why they have to be
cooled, why the batteries have to be replaced in
one's calculator, recharged in one's laptop, and
periodically checked in one's smoke-detector.

Folks who are willing to do the work necessary
to maintain a positive energy-gradient can experience
the illusion of 'shared-sameness', but it's just that -
an illusion - be-cause the external power supply
knows only WDB2T, which means that every-
thing that's dependent upon the 'external' power
supply also knows only WDB2T - for they
cease to provide the illusion when the 'external'
power drops below a threshold.

In the future, machines will be engineered with
all of this at the heart of every component's
functioning. And the information-processing
power of these machines will be to present 'day'
'supercomputers' as present'day' supercomputers
are to dime-store calculators.

Meanwhile, we have the nervous system, which
was 'engineered' in exactly this way, and already
exhibits the analogous information-processing-
power =differential=.

And, BTW, "differences" are calculable only be-
cause there's nothing within physical reality, short
of the Universe as a whole [probably] that is
'reversible'.

Again, if there was anything 'reversible', it'd be
Invisible, even if they were "differences" :-]

Cheers, Lester, ken [K. P. Collins]

[...]

On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:31:49 GMT, "k p Collins"
kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Lester.

The position I'm discussing is not yet
accepted by others.

I'm just working to bring itforward.

So, you should feel no 'need' with
respect to it, one way or the other.

I have Verified it all the way down to
individual 'atoms', however.

It will withstant all Tests.

Rather than quibble over the balance of the post, Ken, check out the
definitions just posted on the Apocalypse Now thread and see if they
don't make my position on the subject of reversibility clearer.

Regards - Lester

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 03:34:49 GMT, "k p Collins"
kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

"Lester Zick" <lesterDELzick@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4026d276.37031275@netnews.att.net...
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 21:31:49 GMT, "k p Collins"
kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> in comp.ai.philosophy wrote:

Thanks for your reply, Lester.

The position I'm discussing is not yet
accepted by others.

I'm just working to bring itforward.

So, you should feel no 'need' with
respect to it, one way or the other.

I have Verified it all the way down to
individual 'atoms', however.

It will withstant all Tests.

Rather than quibble over the balance of the post, Ken, check out the
definitions just posted on the Apocalypse Now thread and see if they
don't make my position on the subject of reversibility clearer.

Regards - Lester

Your premise is False.

Which premise is that? If you're
referring to P "differences" that is
proven by the universally self
contradictory nature of alternatives
Q "different from differences".

However the purpose of the
Apocalypse Now post for present
purposes was just to make my
position on reversibility/irreversibility
issues clear. And I hope I've done that
by showing what my ideas on the two
aspects of that issue is in technical terms.

In other words I'm just showing that
technically reversible processes
are defined by identical definitions for
+/- as far as I'm concerned.

I wasn't trying to argue the case one
way or the other only to clarify what
I consider the mechanical basis for my
definition of reversibility/irreversibility
and the arrow of time.

You're welcome to consider entropy
as some kind of definitional aspect of
otherwise reversible processes. I don't
but if you do I think you need to show
how increasing entropy actually connects
to those processes in mechanical terms
of causation rather than simply asserting
that it does.

In other words even if increasing entropy
were a causative factor in material inter-
actions it would have to be shown how
that local aspect translates into some kind
of necessarily universal aspect of material
interactions in general such that there is no
identical definition for +/- operations.

That is what classical thermodynamics
does by assumption but it has never been
shown to be true according to the
nature of physical processes in general.

That aspect of increasing entropy might
in some way represent the cause for different
definitions of +/- operations in local terms that
might provide a mechanical basis for irreversible
operations and intelligence. It's hard to tell for
sure.

However nothing about increasing entropy
has been shown to be universally true for
material interactions in general.

"P", "Q", "sense", "nonsense", Etc. in your other
post, only have existence in representational forms.
It requires the doing of work to instantiate the
representation. And, in the doing of this Neces-
sary work, the net dynamics are, in fact, =never=
the same. [Except, probably, for the Universe as
a whole, and, then, only at stereotypical universal
energy-flow thresholds.]

This holds, of course, even with respect to so-
called "binary" machines. It's why they have to be
cooled, why the batteries have to be replaced in
one's calculator, recharged in one's laptop, and
periodically checked in one's smoke-detector.

Folks who are willing to do the work necessary
to maintain a positive energy-gradient can experience
the illusion of 'shared-sameness', but it's just that -
an illusion - be-cause the external power supply
knows only WDB2T, which means that every-
thing that's dependent upon the 'external' power
supply also knows only WDB2T - for they
cease to provide the illusion when the 'external'
power drops below a threshold.

In the future, machines will be engineered with
all of this at the heart of every component's
functioning. And the information-processing
power of these machines will be to present 'day'
'supercomputers' as present'day' supercomputers
are to dime-store calculators.

Meanwhile, we have the nervous system, which
was 'engineered' in exactly this way, and already
exhibits the analogous information-processing-
power =differential=.

And, BTW, "differences" are calculable only be-
cause there's nothing within physical reality, short
of the Universe as a whole [probably] that is
'reversible'.

Again, if there was anything 'reversible', it'd be
Invisible, even if they were "differences" :-]

Cheers, Lester, ken [K. P. Collins]






Regards - Lester