Dear Bruno:

At , you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
> >This is particularly due to my stand that true random noise is
> >inherent in each universe within the Everything.
>Remember that true random noise appear in the UDA because we don't know
>in which computation ("universe") we belong. So random noise does
>not need to be added. It is something we cannot avoid from our first
>person point of view of embedded observer.
>It is the point where Schmidhuber disagrees so much. We will come back
>on this question soon.

My position is a bit different - I think - in that I do not see observers 
as essential to the presence of true random noise in a universe.  The UD, 
IMO - after a concatenation of its output strings into one long one that is 
then altered at the knit points in some pattern - is within itself a single 
valued elegant cascade.  This would hold even if the activity around the 
knit points is spread out along a region of the string as in Juergen's 
model [If I have it right].  It is one out of an infinite number of similar 
cascades that form a sub set within the more general isomorphism tree I 

My position is that all these attempted single valued elegant cascades run 
into the complexity limit imposed by Chaitin's incompleteness in such a way 
as to be unable to halt absent contradiction.  The contradiction can only 
be cured by an increase in complexity of the FAS governing the 
cascade.  The added information can only come from outside the 
cascade.  Not from outside the isomorphism tree.

If I have it right your approach is that the UD has an inherent true random 
noise content if some of its sub strings define universes sufficiently rich 
in logic to be subject to other incompleteness mechanisms especially if 
observers are present.  Actually I think you may be  saying that the entire 
UD is rich enough in any manifestation to necessarily posses this 
characteristic.  With this I would agree if a minimum possible complexity 
UD can be shown to meet the threshold of these incompleteness mechanisms.

If you rely on the scanner transporter duplicator for this demonstration I 
consider it to be the same as my E/N alternation.

However, in my approach the UD [all of them] are a small part of the 

>  Well, I hope, because for teachers may and june are
>terrible :-(.

Perhaps this will allow me a chance to catch up with your logic posts.


Reply via email to