Le 16-mai-06, à 02:22, Russell Standish a écrit :
> An observer attaches a meaning to the data e observes. The set of all
> such meanings is semantic space or "meaning space". I believe this is
> necessarily a discrete set (but not necessarily finite).
If you have the time to define formally your "meaning space" I could be
interested. I don't founf it in your writings.
>>> The details, of course are in my paper "Why Occams Razor". To
>>> summarise, an observer induces a map O(x) from the space of
>>> descriptions, which is equivalent AFAIK to the output of your UD,
>> ? The UD has neither inputs nor outputs. (like any "universe" or
>> "everything", note)
> Perhaps I'm being a little casual in my terminology. What I'm
> referring to is UD*.
But UD* is not even a program. It is the "trace" (at some level) of the
entire (infinite) execution of the UD.
> Why does constructibility, or
> otherwise have anything to do with the 1/3 person distinction?
It is the logic of the self-extending self. It is akin to Brouwer's
theory of consciousness, which is a root of its intuitionist
philosophy. It is among the confirmed point through the fact that the
theaetetical variant Bp & p (the "soul hypostase), although not
constructive per se, does lead to an arithmetical interpretation of
intuitionism, like the "intelligible and sensible matter hypostases"
lead to a form of arithmetical quantization.
> I am willing to concede that there is possibly more to the WR problem,
> but I have yet to see it expressed in a manner I can understand :).
It is the whole point of the UDA to help making this clear. Perhaps I
am wrong but I think you underestimate the fact that the first person
are not aware of the delays (numbers of steps) make by the UD to reach
computational continuing states. Think about a highly discontinuous
function with continuous derivatives: we can only be conscious of the
derivative because we does not feel either the "splitting" or
"bifurcation", nor the discontinuous jumps.
Everyone is free to download my last presentation of the UDA (my SANE
paper), and tell me at which point they believed the argument does not
proceed. A step could be wrong or not well supported perhaps, but until
now, honest scientists who take time to verify the argument does not
see anything wrong, and most abandon comp in a way or another because
they cannot really swallow the platonist reversal ...
Well, in the worst case I will come back next millennium ;-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at