On 3/19/07, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones > > outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist, > without > > benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that > > non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is, > why > > should computations have a privileged ontological status in the > everything? > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > > > That's not an assumption I make. The only thing given "priveleged > ontological status" are the descriptions (or infinite length strings - > binary or in your choice of alphabet). These are not the > outputs of any computational process, although they can be considered > as generated dynamically by a UD if you wish (although not necessary).
OK, I just read "bitstring" as something generated by a computer, but I see that you deliberately differentiate the descriptions from the Schmidhuber ensemble, making your theory more general: http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node2.html Stathis Papaioannou --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
