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