Re: terminal von Neumann

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Howard,

As you say, Rosen's comments on "confounding of simulation (computation)
with construction" occur in Life Itself. My statement that you quote was
from my "Part 2" post and was explicitly in regard to Rosen's remark in Life
Itself, not to the 1959 paper (which I discussed separately in my "Part 1"
post). You make it appear here as if I was talking about the 1959 paper in
your "correction" to my statement. I do not know why you bring up the 1959
paper at all in this regard. The 1959 paper does not discuss construction
vs. simulation at all. It has only to do with the logical paradox.

Since confounding simulation with construction obviously involves some case
of simulation, I take it that Rosen (in Life Itself, to reiterate) refers to
simulations by von Neumann, such as the cellular automata. I did not know
there were five types of models and not only two, but Rosen's remarks would
at least apply to the cellular automata ones.

You say that Rosen, in 1959, ought to have read p. 122-126 of "Theory of
Self-reproducing Automata" to see that von Neumann already discussed the
logical paradox. But as you well know "Theory of  Self-reproducing Automata"
was only published in 1966. That would have been quite a feat for Rosen!!
Rosen's reference for the 1959 paper was a 1951 paper by von Neumann "The
General and Logical Theory of Automata" in "Cellular Mechanisms in
Behavior". Was the text presented in the pages 122-126 in "Theory of
Self-reproducing Automata" available in 1959??

As far as I can see from your remarks: 1) von Neumann was aware of the same
logical paradox as Rosen, and that 2) von Neumann was also aware of the "big
interpretational problems" of computer simulations with regard to
construction.

So, if von Neumann was aware of these problems as being entirely legitimate
ones, then why do you feel that Rosen's legacy is damaged by bringing up
Rosen's account of those same issues??? It seems you read Rosen as
insinuating that he is bringing up issues that von Neumann missed or was
ignorant of. If you read Rosen that way, then I can see your complaint. But
I do not read Rosen that way - to bring up von Neumann's automata as an
example of where simulation can be confounded with construction is to me
hardly damning of the man, particularly when von Neumann would have agreed
there was an issue. It is good, though, to learn that von Neumann had these
same kinds of thoughts and concerns about his own theory.

Regards,
Tim


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: terminal von Neumann
>
>
> Tim,
> I accept the list?s consensus that the von Neumann discussion
> should not continue since it is apparently causing so much grief.
> However, you said you would welcome seeing the von Neumann quotes
> that I promised, so here they are.
>
> I emphasize that there is one and only one issue these quotes are
> chosen to address. It is Bob?s statements (I apologize for using
> ? accusation?) that von Neumann did not distinguish computation
> from construction. I repeat here only one of Bob?s statements
> from LI. (The others were not parenthetic.):
>
> Rosen: ?I remark parenthetically that the confounding of
> simulation (computation) with construction, which lies at the
> heart of, e.g., von Neumann?s well-known discussion of
> ?self-reproducing automata,? arises precisely here and rests
> entirely on the equivocal and inconsistent hardware/software
> distinctions to which I have just called attention.?
>
> HP: The only issue I have ever meant to raise, is that von
> Neumann?s extensive discussions show that this assertion has no
> basis in fact, and I am sorry if my careless language implied
> otherwise. All your other discussions are interesting, but are
> not at issue since none of the other authors assert that the
> problem is von Neumann?s ?confounding.?
>
> I have never found in Rosen?s papers or anywhere else any
> specific evidence, such as direct quotations of von Neumann, or
> even a reference to a specific page or section of his voluminous
> writings, which suggests such confounding. My teachers and
> colleagues in physics, some of whom knew von Neumann well, felt
> that Rosen?s claim was unfair and unwarranted, and unfortunately
> this has biased them against his important ideas.
>
> There are also a few clarifications needed.
>
> Tim: According to Burk, [Arthur Burks] there were two models of
> "self-reproducing automata" proposed by von Neumann: the
> kinematic automaton and the cellular automaton. I believe it is
> in regard to the latter model, the one which was developed into
> more detail (e.g., the 29-state machine) by von Neumann, that
> Rosen is addressing his remarks.
>
> HP: No. That is incorrect. Bob?s 1959 paper, written while still
> a graduate student, was about the kinematic model (according to
> Bob in video interview, 4/23/98, by Peter Cariani). The cellular
> automaton model is the one (of actually five models) that von
> Neumann wanted to ?axiomatize? because he could not define
> precisely enough the kinematic model. It is the cellular
> automaton that has the big interpretational problems just because
> a computer cannot actually construct anything. It can only
> simulate construction. This is why von Neumann warned that
> axiomatizing, ?throws half the problem out the window, and it may
> be the more important half.? But von Neumann always stated
> clearly the need to distinguish between formal logic
> (computation) and construction even in the axiomatized cellular automata.
>
> Von Neumann (Theory of  Self-reproducing Automata, Pt. 2, Chap.
> 1, General Considerations, p. 91):
> ?The methods that will be used in this paper contribute, however,
> only very partially to the effort that is needed in that
> direction [the thermodynamics of construction], and at any rate,
> we will limit ourselves at this occasion to the establishing of
> certain existences (by suitable as hoc constructions) in the
> sense outlined above.?
>
> ?1.1.2.1 The main questions: (A) ? (E). Within the above
> limitations, however, we will deal with problems that are rather
> central ? at least for the initial phases of the subject. We will
> investigate
> automata under two important, and connected, aspects: those of
> logics and of construction. We can organize our considerations
> under the headings of five main questions.
>
> (A) Logical universality. When is a class of automata logically
> universal, i.e., able to perform all those logical operations
> that are at all performable with finite (but arbitrarily extensive) means?
>
> (B) Constructability. Can an automaton be constructed, i.e.,
> assembled and built from appropriately defined ?raw materials? by
> another automaton?
>
> (C) Construction universality. Making the second question, (B),
> more specific, can any one, suitably given, automaton be
> construction universal, i.e., be able to construct in the sense
> of question (B) (with suitable, but essentially standard
> attachments) every other automaton?
>
> HP: Von Neumann?s last two headings are (D) Self-reproduction and
> (E) Evolution, which I will skip.  If you read this far and still
> claim that "von Neumann confounded computation (simulation) with
> construction" then I doubt going further will help. But I will
> try, since he only gets more explicit about the differences
> between formal logics (computation) and construction.
>
> Von Neumann (ibid. pp. 99-101):
> ?1.2 The Role of Logics ? Question (A)
> 1.2.1 The logical operations ? neurons. In evaluating question
> (A), one must obviously consider automata which possess organs
> that can express the essential propositions of logics and which
> need not possess any other organs. This can be done by using
> organs each of which possess two stable states, corresponding to
> the basic truth-values of true and false in logics. It is
> convenient to use a plausible physiological analogy and to
> designate these organs (whatever they are or are thought to be in
> reality) as neurons, and the two states as excited and quiescent,
> respectively.?
>
> HP: Von Neumann goes on for two pages on logics that are
> essentially what is needed for Turing-equivalent computations,
> and then he takes up construction that he describes as an
> entirely different type of activity:
>
> Von Neumann (ibid. pp. 101-111):
> ?1.3 The Basic Problems of Construction ? Question (B)
> 1.3.1.1 The immediate treatment, involving geometry, kinematics, etc.
> The most immediate approach is this. The constituent organs are
> the neurons and lines necessitated by (A), plus such additional
> organs (B) will require. These constituent organs are to be
> conceived of as physical objects in actual space. Their
> acquisition and combination (including the establishment of rigid
> connections between them) must accordingly take place in actual space.?
>
> HP: Von Neumann goes on in more detail for about 10 pages that I
> will skip (I am not taking anything out of context.) It?s all
> about implementing construction as distinguished from logics and
> computation. I have used only one von Neumann reference. There
> are others; but as I said, if the above quotes are unconvincing,
> more quotes won?t help.
>
> I want to reemphasize that whether von Neumann?s automata
> actually work or not is not the issue. Also as I said, Rosen?s
> formally correct argument is not at issue. As a matter of fact,
> von Neumann was well aware of the same basic argument that Rosen
> used (a form of antinomy of the Richard type, i.e., the
> self-reference paradox of sets that are members of themselves).
> He discussed it at length (ibid. pp. 122-126.) and shows how it
> might be avoided. I feel sure that if Bob had read it before 1959
> he would have agreed and saved everyone a lot of grief.
>
> I also feel it is ironic, and over the many years, contrary to
> Bob?s interests, that he never refers to those ideas of von
> Neumann?s that were not contrary to his own, specifically (1) the
> basic epistemology of Hertz, (2) the inadequacy of physical laws
> to explain life, (3) the irreducibility (unentailment) of
> measurement (coding), and (4) the difficulties of modeling life
> by any formal computation.
>
> Howard