Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Arno,

If you have read all the relevant posts, you will know that it was not the
direct quotes from von Neumann that were at issue but rather, the
inflammatory personal statements by Howard, including those from his posts
on 3/25/04 and 3/30/04.

Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 3:47 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??
>
>
> 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
> >