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.


Reply via email to