[FRIAM] Abduction

[Marcus Daniels]

Possibly of interest..  https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.031013

On 1/3/19, 9:36 AM, "∄ uǝʃƃ" <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:

    Heh, while I appreciate the concrete example, it doesn't resolve my worry.  Why?  Because my steelmanning of Nick/Eric(C)/Peirce (NEP) requires *more* than the parallelism theorem (PT - that all parallel graphs can be simulated by sequential graphs).  If we take NEP seriously, the PT requires us to parse "simulate".  I'm going to try and fail to explain my worry.  I apologize for how badly I'll mangle it.
    
    Nick has taken pains to explain that there's plenty of wiggle room by claiming Peirce thought randomness was pervasive.  But, if the real structure is parallel we have 3 options:
    
    1) The independent paths bind/obtain at the same time,
    2) The paths always bind/end in the same order, or
    3) The paths bind/end in a different order depending on some other factor including randomness.
    
    So, the reduction of that to a sequential process requires us to add that extra meta-process, e.g. creates a 3-tuple choice mechanism and/or a (perhaps pseudo) random appendage.
    
    This seems like a problem for NEP's convergence to the real.  I'll just work with (3) in this post.  But I can draw similar problems from (1) and (2).  Let's say with a particular process, (3) seems to be the case.  Then what is it that NEP says is "real"?  Is the parallel process the real thing?  Or is the sequential process plus (perhaps pseudo) random number generator the real thing?  And regardless of which of those NEP might assert metaphysical Truth to, can we then *use* that to infer derivative metaphysical Truths?  E.g. if NEP says the process is really parallel, then does that imply that the universe does *not* have a monotonically increasing parameter (like the arrow of time or the control pointer in the compiled code)?  Or if the sequential+random is real, does that imply that the universe *does* have such a parameter?
    
    So, my steelmanning ability ends.  I can't make an argument from what I know (or don't) about NEP.
    
    Of course, this is the problem with all metaphysical claims, for every instance where we have to equivocate on "simulate".  So if NEP is really only saying that "nothing is real, some patterns are simply more robust than others", then why not just say that and be done with it?  Why all the fideistic rigmarole?
    
    On 12/31/18 2:50 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
    > Uh, why?  For example, compilation of a recursive function to a control flow graph.
    > 
    > 
    > mdaniels at m2:~$ cat t.c
    > #include <stdbool.h>
    > 
    > int foo(bool flag) {
    >   if (flag) foo(false);
    >   else return 0;
    > }
    > mdaniels at m2:~$ gcc -fdump-tree-cfg -c t.c
    > mdaniels at m2:~$ cat t.c.011t.cfg
    > 
    > ;; Function foo (foo, funcdef_no=0, decl_uid=1956, cgraph_uid=0, symbol_order=0)
    > 
    > ;; 1 loops found
    > ;;
    > ;; Loop 0
    > ;;  header 0, latch 1
    > ;;  depth 0, outer -1
    > ;;  nodes: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    > ;; 2 succs { 3 4 }
    > ;; 3 succs { 5 }
    > ;; 4 succs { 6 }
    > ;; 5 succs { 1 }
    > ;; 6 succs { 1 }
    > foo (_Bool flag)
    > {
    >   int D.1962;
    > 
    >   <bb 2> :
    >   if (flag != 0)
    >     goto <bb 3>; [INV]
    >   else
    >     goto <bb 4>; [INV]
    > 
    >   <bb 3> :
    >   foo (0);
    >   goto <bb 5>; [INV]
    > 
    >   <bb 4> :
    >   D.1962 = 0;
    >   // predicted unlikely by early return (on trees) predictor.
    >   goto <bb 6>; [INV]
    > 
    >   <bb 5> :
    >   return;
    > 
    >   <bb 6> :
    > <L3>:
    >   return D.1962;
    > 
    > }
    
    -- 
    ∄ uǝʃƃ
    
    ============================================================
    FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
    Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
    to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
    archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
    FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove