I tried to scroll along this discussion - *in vain*. My *"mind"* is not
strong enough for that. I picked out portions to reply, while reading, then
other parts washed them away and at the end I sit here blank.
 I remember: "to simulate one's *mind*"
 - - One's WHAT? - -
I found the naive determinism physics/philosophy uses in a limited
*model*of circumstances. Otherwise there may be no mention of
'predicting' the
deterministically entailed happenings by those influences that originates
the trends from all over, considered (observed, known) or not, PLUS the
total (sub- and super conscious) content of one's
experience in the individual coloration of one's personal treat.
The mind (you may know what I am referring to, even if I don't) impacts
effects and affects by all facets of our *perceived reality* fragments, be
they consiously registered or just qualifyingly 'felt'(?).
Under such conditions and the influence of the totality it is childish to
assume ANY predictions.
Shortest algorithm? I dislike that *embryonic binary** *thinking in
our *digital
*computer programs, even in those few we cannot compare ALL possible(?)
(including the impossible) variations. We use here on this list a 24ary
software called English (more or less). There are many similar(?) ones
My 'deterministic' does not say much more than "not random". (I.e.: fitting
into the totality).
"...If the universe is a four-dimensional mathematical structure,..."
or would we rather say:
"if we use a simulation for the universe in form of a 4D - even 'math' -
structure to satisfy our human limitations in our presently achieved figment
of scientific understanding.."
Stathis has interesting words on 'time(s)' .
He also asked:
"Hm, sounds good, but is that true?"
(Never mind: what) - everybody has HIS own truth.
Since the influencing (mind?) experience is just as individual as a DNA or a
fingerprint, and the actual situation(s) influencing the
'decisionmaking' are not repeatable for 2 persons/occasions (in the
constinually changing totality) a TRUTH cannot be established. We can
believe and claim.
And so on...

John M

On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 5:25 AM, uv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "Jason Resch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote
> > Max Tegmark had a paper recently ... I could not find the paper ...
> Could possibly be arXiv:0704.0646v2
> But the use of his CUH in advance of a detailed consideration of what
> people (but not necessarily computers) think, tends to be putting the
> cart before the horse if we want to answer questions conerning people or
> sentient observers of any kind, possible even tardigrades which survive
> and live (probably in hybernation) in a space vacuum. But CUH has the
> merit of being a possible "incomplete model" which, as tends to be the
> case for incomplete models, may leave unanswered or incompletely
> answered, important questions such as yours. The MBI suggests that there
> may never be any simply quick fix to that problem. Partial fixes, like a
> changed mathematical structure, may degrade existing satisfactory
> features of the model for this aspect of the work but probably that
> cannot be helped.
> uv
> >

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