Hi Bruno: At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
>Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > >>Hal Ruhl writes: >> >> > Hi Bruno: >> > >> > I do not think I fully understand what you are saying. >> > >> > Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its >> > evolving universes - meaning I take it that all >> > successive states are fully logical consequences of their prior state. >> >>You mean "physical consequences" or something >>similar, don't you? I don't see anything >>logically inconsistent about a talking white >>rabbit or even the atoms of my keyboard >>reassembling themselves into a fire-breathing dragon. > My model taps the inconsistency of a complete collection of information to give the dynamic of its universe state to state succession at least some random content. There is no conflict in my approach with talking white rabbits or uncommonly evolving keyboards. What I indicated is that all I needed to encompass our world in a UD metaphor of a sub set of my model was a compatible ongoing intersection of a set [an infinite set most likely] of UD traces. The picture is a set of say twenty traces all arriving at twenty "Our World" compatible successive states simultaneously. If the traces assign a compatible degree of hyper existence to their respective states then the result is twenty immediately successive states with a rising then falling degree of Hyper existence. The intersecting traces are not even necessarily logically related just compatibly coincident for one of "Our World's" "ticks" so to speak. At the next "tick" of our world a completely different set of twenty traces can be involved. "Our World" can be precisely as random as it needs to be. >I agree with Stathis. Much more, I can prove to >you that the sound lobian machine agrees with Stathis! >It is a key point: there is nothing inconsistent >with my seeing and measuring white rabbits (cf >"dreams, videa, ...). Both with QM and/or comp, >we can only hope such "events" are relatively rare. >Now, a naive reading of the UD can give the >feeling that with comp white rabbits are not >rare at all, and that is why I insist at some >point that we have to take more fully into >account the "objective constraints" of >theoretical computer science and mathematical >logic (some of which are counter-intuitive and even necessarily so). > > >Hal Ruhl continued: > > >>I would see this as a selection of one possibility from two. >> >>Lets us say that you are correct about this >>result re your model, this just seems to >>reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order >>to avoid the information generating selection in the full set. > > > >It *could* be the contrary. In quantum mechanics >a case can be given that it *is* the contrary. >It is by taking the full set of (relative >histories) that the quantum phase randomization >can eliminate the quantum aberrant histories (cf Feynman paths). >It works with the QM because of the existence of >destructive interferences, and somehow what the >computationalist has to justify is the (first >person plural) appearance of such destructive effects. > >Bruno Given an uncountably infinite number of objects generated from a countably infinite list of properties and an uncountably infinite number of UD's in the metaphor I can not see an issue with this re my model. As I said above "Our World" can be as precisely as random as it needs to be. Hal Ruhl --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---