On 14 Sep., 02:27, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In order to observe something about the world it will be necessary to observe 
> relations, not just things with properties.  If you allow countably many 
> n-place relations, how will you encode them and how will you express that 
> things like "George owes an explanation of counting to Bob."  Do you assume 
> that every thing has enough distinct properties to make it unique?
> Brent Meeker

The approach constructing the Everything ensemble using "properties"
as fundamental building blocks has its difficulties. We need a set of
distinct and independent properties (such that having property p and
having property q is no contradiction if p and q are different)
because otherwise we wouldn't get the whole Schmidhuber ensemble which
ensures zero information content. Hence, the way I proposed is still
vague---It's only a postulate that such a set of properties exists.
Though, I think it gives an idea of how we imagine the Schmidhuber

I'll give an example: Let's study the ensemble of all possible images
your monitor can display. It is then possible to describe the images
pixel by pixel, every pixel being mapped to a color value. This would
be a description using perfectly independent properties (since every
combination of colors gives a possible image). "Relations" are not
part of this description, they are seen by observers who assign a
meaning to what they see. For example they see a person on the image
holding a pencil. Similarly, we imagine the Schmidhuber ensemble.
Descriptions are built up of elementary and independent properties
(corresponding to the pixels on your monitor).

Youness Ayaita

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 

Reply via email to