Le 18-juin-06, à 01:55, Russell Standish a écrit :
> A description is an infinite length (bit)string (bits in brackets, > because any other alphabet will do also). This use does sometimes fly > in face of what people expect, Certainly. > but I define this explicitly - it is a > useful term. > > I'm just using the term "object" informally. The zero information > object is in > fact a set of descriptions. ? > >> I can understand "an infinite length object", like some putative >> infinite physical universe for example. I can understand "a zero >> information description"; for example the empty program or some empty >> theory (I will address "theories" later though). It is harder for me >> to >> understand what can be the use of infinite description or a >> zero-information object. >> > > Only sets of descriptions (remember infinite length bitstrings) can > have finite information. ? > > This looks like a terminological issue... ? >> I think the only trouble with Schmidhuber, and then with many people >> to >> be sure, is that they find hard to take seriously enough the >> distinction between first and third person point of views. >> The UD is a (finite) program, and when it runs, like any program >> running on some universal machine, it uses only at each time a finite >> piece of its (potentially infinite) tape, etc. >> Now, indeed, once you grasp that the probabilities of relative >> histories relies on the first person point of view, the case can been >> made that the infinite computations have a higher measure that the >> finite one, so that somehow physicalities emerges from the infinite >> set >> of those infinite (crashing-like) computations. >> > > You're talking here of his speed prior argument of course. ? (I was just saying that Schmidhuber miss the 1/3 distinction). > I think he > is wrong too, and agree with you, however I'm not so sure his > arguments are this easy to dismiss. Which argument in particular? > It is related again to the ancient > debate on ASSA vs RSSA - Schmidhuber's argument works if you assume > just one computation is selected as your universe, which is rather > contrary to functionalism (and COMP). Remember Schmidhuber assumes comp. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
