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.

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 

Reply via email to