Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??

[Arno Goudsmit <***>]

Howard, I am not too frequent a lurker to know exactly which 'consensus'you are 
perceiving on this list, but it seems to me that a critical appraisal of RR's writings 
cannot cause too much grief to a group that cherishes a non-dogmatic interest into 
matters of complexity. If Rosen did do some injustice to vNeumann, then this is a thing 
to be studied carefully, to say the least. To say more: if we, being serious students of 
Rosen's writings, might be capable of recognizing some errors in the work of the master, 
then this may even enable some of the former opposants of Rosen to reconsider their  
(unjustified) rejection of his entire work. Or is this list committed to hagiography?

cheers,
Arno Goudsmit
www.personeel.unimaas.nl/arno.goudsmit


----- Original Message -----
From: Howard Pattee <***>
Date:         Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:58:09 -0500
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