On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 02:12:11PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > My guess is that sufficiently long, meaningful data strings have > their meaning implicitly within themselves, because there is no > reasonable-length program that can interpret them as anything else. > > Hal Finney >
This is patently false, as otherwise unbreakable ciphers would not exist. The "anything else", of course is junk. However, it does seem to be true that not all strings are capable of being interpreted as an observer moment of a conscious observer. This is kind of a flip side of what you're saying. I'm not aware of this being proven, though, or even the similar (and weaker under COMP) statement that not all strings are capable of being interpreted as self-describing Turing machine. Note that this feeds in Chalmers conscious rocks argument. Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
