Hi Youness:

I have been posting models based on a list of properties as the 
fundamental for a few years.

Hal Ruhl



At 06:36 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote:

>On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Youness Ayaita wrote:
>
>This leads to the
>2nd idea:
>We don't say that imaginable things are fundamental, but that the
>properties themselves are. This idea was also expressed by 1Z in his
>last reply ("We define imaginable things through hypothetical
>combinations of properties", Z1) and I think it's a very good
>candidate for a solution. Then, we start from S being the set of all
>properties (perhaps with the cardinality of the natural numbers). As
>above, we define {0,1}^S as the ensemble of descriptions. This would
>have the cardinality of the real numbers and could mathematically be
>captured by the infinite strings {0,1}^IN (the formal definition of
>the Schmidhuber ensemble to give an answer for Bruno).
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to