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 

Reply via email to