Brent writes > Lee Corbin wrote: > > Hal writes > > > >> I did mention the question of whether a given calculation > >> instantiated a given OM. Maybe "instantiate" is not the > >> right word there. I meant to consider the question of whether > >> the first calculation added to the measure of the information > >> structure corresponding to the OM. > > > > I think that both the word and the meaning are clear. > > ... > > > > So the big "Everything" claim, or Schmidhuber conjecture, (or > > I don't know what to call it) is that you and I are *already* > > being instantiated by abstract mathematical patterns (the > > UDist, for Universal Distribution). > > I'm uncertain whether "instantiated by abstract mathematical > patterns" means that the patterns are being physically realized > by a process in time (as in the sci-fi above)
no - any old conscious program does that, when it gets to run > or by the physical existence of the patterns in some static form > (e.g. written pieces of paper) or just by the Platonic "existence" > of the patterns within some mathematic/logic system. yes - moreover, they claim that this is what *everything* is and that all of physics, processes, and people arise only from the static pre-existence of mathematical patterns There is a *lot* of confusion about this. But I think that the usage above is what is the most standard. Lee