On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:56:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 27-sept.-07, à 12:43, Russell Standish a écrit :
It may well be that Darwinism is some marriage of information theory
with a multiverse idea, but it is not obvious how this works. I'd take
it as a fairly fundamental
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Of course. But I also put Darwinian evolution up there with that
(variation/selection is a powerful theory).
This to vague for me. I have no (big) conceptual problem with Darwinian
Evolution, but this is not
Le 21-sept.-07, à 02:30, Russell Standish a écrit :
I do take the reversal, but not as granted. It is essentially a
consequence of any ensemble theory of everything with a 1-3
distinction. This is most clearly enunciated from within a
computationalist position, which is why I think your UDA
Le 19-sept.-07, à 11:56, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field,
but, as you have already acknowledge, there is some lack in rigor in
it, and it is not even clear if
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 19-sept.-07, à 11:56, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field,
but, as you have already
On 18 Sep., 16:23, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So without putting any
extra-stcruture on the set of infinite strings, you could as well have
taken as basic in your ontology the set of subset of N, written P(N).
Now, such a set is not even nameable in any first order theory. In a
On Sep 19, 1:18 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc:
The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are
static elements of the power set.
My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change -
they can be the current state of a something on its path to
On Sep 19, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Schmidhuber and me do agree on comp (100%
agreement: we have the same hypothesis). And relatively to the comp hyp
and the importance of the universal machine Schmidhuber and me are much
closer than with Tegmark whi is just very
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field,
but, as you have already acknowledge, there is some lack in rigor in
it, and it is not even clear if eventually you are of the ASSA type or
RSSA type, or
Le 19-sept.-07, à 09:59, Youness Ayaita wrote (in two posts):
You mentioned the ASSA. Yesterday, motivdated by your hint, I have
read about the ASSA/RSSA debate that is said to have divided the list
into two camps. Since I have trouble with the reasoning I read, I will
probably send a new
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 19-sept.-07, 09:59, Youness Ayaita wrote (in two posts):
Probably, we
won't find the set of natural numbers within this universe, the number
of identical particles (as far as we can talk about that) of any kind
is finite.
Not in all "models"
Many thanks! I'll give my current attitudes to your hints:
Bruno:
You mentioned the ASSA. Yesterday, motivdated by your hint, I have
read about the ASSA/RSSA debate that is said to have divided the list
into two camps. Since I have trouble with the reasoning I read, I will
probably send a new
Le 17-sept.-07, à 14:22, Russell Standish a écrit :
Sorry my fingers are slipping. Machines (computable functions) are a
type of map, but not all maps are machines (or perhaps you prefer the
word function to map).
OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field,
Hi Marc:
The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are
static elements of the power set.
My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change -
they can be the current state of a something on its path to completion.
Hal
At 12:13 AM 9/18/2007, you wrote:
On
I do see one mistake I made.
A Nothing is incomplete since it can not resolve any question but
there is one it must resolve - that of its own duration. So it is
unstable - it eventually decays [Big Bang] into a something that
follows a path to completion by becoming an ever increasing sub
Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar
ideas:
List of all properties: The list of all possible properties
objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least
one object: A Nothing. A Nothing has at least one property -
emptiness. The list is most
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
These sorts of discussions No-justification,
Just a further comment - Youness asked me about his properties
idea. For me a property is something that belongs to the semantic
level, not the syntactic one. It is something that distinguishes one
subset of the ensemble from another. This later ends up being the
results of projections in a
Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:22, Youness Ayaita a écrit :
Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar
ideas:
List of all properties: The list of all possible properties
objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least
one object: A Nothing. A Nothing
Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:51, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
These
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It doesn't matter. The most interesting ones, however, have inverse
images of non-zero measure. ie \forall n \in N, the set
O^{-1}(n) = {x: O(x)=n}
is of nonzero measure.
I have no clue of what you are saying here.
Hi Youness:
Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the
underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that
I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I
am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume.
This
On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to
a preimage x, we
On Sep 18, 1:24 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Youness:
Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the
underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that
I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I
am having difficultly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is
Hi Youness:
I have been posting models based on a list of properties as the
fundamental for a few years.
Hal Ruhl
At 06:36 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Youness Ayaita wrote:
This leads to the
2nd idea:
We don't say that imaginable
Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information
principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All
On 14 Sep., 02:27, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In order to observe something about the world it will be necessary to observe
relations, not just things with properties. If you allow countably many
n-place relations, how will you encode them and how will you express that
things
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But how is
this transition made? At this point I
On 12 Sep, 15:32, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For further
research, it is then natural to identify imaginable things with their
descriptions and to choose a simple alphabet for expressing the
descriptions (e.g. strings of 0 and 1).
How would you express A thing such that it
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information
principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and
Nothing (or should that be duelling) are really just motivators for
getting at the ensemble, which turns out
Youness Ayaita wrote:
...
I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to
a preimage x, we usually must know a formula first. But the
On 13 Sep, 12:47, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Youness Ayaita wrote:
...
I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit :
These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information
principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and
Nothing (or should that be duelling) are
I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was
erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.
So, I restrict my arguments
Youness Ayaita wrote:
I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was
erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So where are the flying pigs?
Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is.
Ok. Why are they there and not here?
I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that saying everything-exists is not only
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So where are the flying pigs?
Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is.
Ok. Why are they there and not here?
I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that saying everything-exists is not
only no-justification it is
Le 12-sept.-07, à 13:08, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So where are the flying pigs?
Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is.
Ok. Why are they there and not here?
I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that
The two concerns, how to give a precise notion of the Everything, and
how to deduce predictions from a chosen notion, lie at the very heart
of our common efforts. Though, I did not go into them for the simple
reason that I wanted to avoid discussions that are not directly linked
to the topic.
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:32:32AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote:
The two concerns, how to give a precise notion of the Everything, and
how to deduce predictions from a chosen notion, lie at the very heart
of our common efforts. Though, I did not go into them for the simple
reason that I
If anyone is interested, I think some of the ideas
at my website, www.geocities.com/roger846, apply to
the current discussion. Briefly, the ideas entail:
o Something exists because it is completely defined.
That is, you know exactly what's contained in that
thing. This applies to material
On 13 Sep., 00:48, Russell Standish wrote:
It would be possible to construct an ensemble of purely finite strings
(all strings of length googol bits, say). This wouldn't satisfy the
zero information principle, or your no-justification, as you still
have the finite string size to justify (why
Youness Ayaita wrote:
...
3 No-justification
The no-justification is the most satisfying justification for the
Everything ensemble I know. I even think that a more satisfying
justification is impossible in principle. So what is it about? The
crucial point is to try to get to the bottom of
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. So where are the flying pigs?
Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
47 matches
Mail list logo
