Dear Hal,

What do you propose as a means to explain the memory and processing required to be sure of inconsistency as opposed to consistency? Both options, it seems to me, require checking of some kind! All that is left is randomness, there is no such a thing as a true "test for randomness" that is finitely implementable! If we accept that option then we have to explain the apparent continuity that occurs in the 1st person aspect of the path.

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Belief Statements



At 06:29 PM 1/29/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,

What your defining seems to me to be a NOT map or else it is a mere random map. There is no consistent definition of an "inconsistent" map otherwise, IMHO. Please explain how I am wrong. ;-)

I wanted to have a sequence that does not accumulate net information or have an rule that is itself net information. A random sequence has to check to see if its pattern fits some test for randomness. A path wherein each step is inconsistent with the past sequence seems to meet the requirements I desired.


Why not a map that is "a path where the information associated with each step is consistent to some degree /delta with the information available about the prior steps"?

In my opinion any such rule is net information.

Hal Ruhl




Reply via email to