Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??

[Howard Pattee <***>]

Arno,

Thanks for the opinion with which I sympathize. All I can say is that on April 2 and 6 I 
provided detailed quotations from von Neumann showing how clearly he distinguished 
computation and construction, software and hardware. This appears to be contrary to Bob?s 
often-expressed opinion. If this evidence causes Judith and Tim only grief, then I simply 
find there is no point in continuing the discussion on this topic. Life is short.

Howard

>
> From: Arno Goudsmit <***>
> Date: 2004/04/21 Wed AM 08:03:46 EDT
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??
>
> 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
>