Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??

[Arno Goudsmit <***>]

Tim, I usually do not skip Pattee's contributions to this list, and I hope we can use his 
critical thoughts for a better understanding of the computation-construction distinction.
Arno




----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gwinn <***>
Date:         Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:35:01 -0400
To: ***
Subject: Re: terminal von Neumann: what consensus??

> 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
> > >