On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 26-sept.-06, à 16:03, Russell Standish a écrit : > > > I would say also that interpretations could be inconsistent, > > > ? ? ? > I guess you are using the word "interpretation" in some non standard > way. > It would help us, and you, if you could work on a glossary. >
"Interpretation of something" means "meaning an observer attaches to something". Is this nonstandard? I wouldn't have thought so. > > > Indeed - however we do have a difference in emphasis. Yours is towards > > more formal models, but with obscure modeling relations, > > My emphasis is on machine which are formal by construction, and the > obscure modeling relation are old and new theorems in mathematical > logic. It is just applied mathematics. > The modelling relations are strange and mysterious, but this is just > because Godel and Lob theorems are somehow themselves strange and > mysterious. But so are your postulates, for example the Theatetus notion of knowledge is far from obvious. I can follow the logic as a formal system, but I struggle to make sense of it (interpret it). > > > > > But is this 1-3 distinction implicit within your statement of COMP? > > I'm not sure that it is. > > I think it is, and the following quote makes me thing you believe this > too, at least in the quantum framework, when you say: > <<Collapse is conceived of as a physical process, and as such is > problematic. Nonphysical collapse is just the 1 POV of the > Multiverse. That's all I'm talking about.>> > But I have an explicit 1-3 distinction in the format of my PROJECTION postulate, and that quoted statement is taken in that context. Obviously I have no objection to the 1-3 distinction, but I failed to see how it follows explicitly from AR+CT+YD, or even from "I am a machine" (in the Turing sense). > > It is not new, it underlies all of Chapter 2 of my book, and also of > > "Why Occams Razor". Perhaps I'm guilty of assuming it without > > explicitly stating it, but by way of challenge can you give me a piece > > of knowledge that doesn't come in the form of a string? > > Knowledge comes from third person finite strings, with a measure > determined by *some* infinite strings (the non halting immaterial > computations) generating them. > But finite strings are just sets of infinite strings. > > It is > > certainly hard, given we live on the opposite sides of a digital world > > - a record of a telephone conversation we have will be a a string of > > bits, as will any emails we use, any my book left my hands in the form > > of a string of bits and so on. > > OK, but that are finite strings conceived and manipulated (by your > computer and your brain with some high level comp assumption) as > numbers. Most test editor manipulate a structure of finite strings > together with a concatenation or substitution structure. Again this is > infinitely richer that your set of all infinite strings. > No - sets have subsets, and all finite strings can be found as a subset of the set of all infinite strings. > > I use the usual one (excluded middle), and I don't use any infinity > > axiom that I'm aware of. > > Now I am very confused. I thought you were assuming infinite strings. A > glossary would really help, I am not sure you are not changing the > meaning of your term from paragraph to paragraph. > You introduced the term infinity axiom. If by a infinity axiom you mean the existence of infinite strings, or the existence of infinite sets, then yes I have an infinity axiom. > > Yes - I appreciate the ontological difference. I would say that only > > "Nothing" exists (in ontological meaning). Strings and sets of strings > > only exist in the same sense that the number "1" exists. > > This contradict the definition of "Nothing" you gave us. > The set of all strings is a model of the Nothing (or equivalently the Everything). It is meant to be the ultimate model, capturing all that is possible to know about it. > > > > About the only difference I see is that the measure might be > > different... > > > And that *is* the key issue, I think. > > > I more or less always assumed this. Either COMP is more specialised > > (you can derive some my postulates from COMP, and others are compatible > > with it), or COMP is the only way of deriving these same postulates, > > or COMP in some way contradicts these postulates. > > As you admit yourself there is a lot of work to get enough precision in > your approach to compare it with the consequence of the > computationalist hypothesis. > As I do have a lot of work to compare the comp-physics with the > experimental physics. > Yes - in that respect, my work ties more closely to physics. However, there is a distinct difference between my string ensemble and Schmidhuber's speed prior one, particularly with respect to randomness. > Sometimes I define strong comp by saying yes to the doctor, and weak > comp by accpetoing your child marry someone who has say yes to the > doctor. Surely you have an opinion on that, no? > To be quite frank, I don't know what to make of that. What does it matter who my child marries, so long as they are happy with that. -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
