> 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.