Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 08-août-06, à 05:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
> >
> > Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP):
> >
> >>> ...a controlled
> >>> experiment in which measure can be turned up and down leaving
> >>> everything else
> >>> the same, such as having an AI running on several computers in
> >>> perfect
> >>> lockstep.
> >>
> >>
> >> I think that the idea that a lower measure OM will appear more complex
> >> is a consequence of Komogorov like ASSA theories (a-la Hal Finney,
> >> Mallah, etc.). OK?
> >
> > I understand the basic principle, but I have trouble getting my mind
> > around
> > the idea of defining a measure when every possible computation exists.
> I am not sure I understand. All real number exist, for example, and it
> is the reason why we can put a measure on it.

I'm confused. In previous conversations you have claimed not to
known what "exists" means.

> All computations exist
> (this is equivalent with arithmetical realism) yet some are or at least
> could be relatively more frequent than others.

If computation are simply integers, they all have the same measure.

If there is some more complex relation, the existence of computations
is not guaranteed by the existence of integers. Any computer
progamme can be represented as a sting of 1's and 0's, but only
int the context of some particular computer.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to