On 18 Aug 2012, at 13:41, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/18/2012 6:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 17 Aug 2012, at 21:04, Stephen P. King wrote:On 8/17/2012 10:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:<snip>The dreaming number are usually very big concrete number. Theydream by encoding computational state of person, relatively tosome universal number, which are encoding universal machinerelatively to some other one, and the initial one can be chosenarbitrary. Those are not symbolic number, but real encodingnumber, a bit like the genome if you want.Dear Bruno,Could you elaborate as to how you explain the means by which anencoding (which is an equivalence relation of sorts between oneset and another)?How do you define "encoding"? What kind of mathematical entity isit?

`I define it by its program, and its semantics. So you can see encoding`

`as defined by the number k such that phi_k(x) is an encoding function.`

`So its precise definition can be given by a number:`

encoding = s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s(s......s(0)))))))) ...) with the right number of parenthesis.

`Equivalently I could define encoding by a SK-combinators, or by a lisp`

`program. All those definition are provably (in peano arithmetic for`

`example) equivalent.`

is a generative action such that dreams obtain?I work in the comp theory, so I postulate that consciousness can bemanifested through a computation.I am thinking that the my self-simulation idea of identityrequires this, so we agree a tiny bit. I do define computations as*any* transformation of information and information I define as "adifference between two that makes a difference to a third".

`Computation is a more easy concept than "information", which is a bit`

`a trash word in which people put usually many different things.`

`Computation admits Church's thesis. Information admits many non`

`equivalent definitions. It is an important cloud of important notion,`

`but I would not use it to define computation, which, thanks to CT, is`

`much more easy to define in a mathematical proper way.`

Bruno

I would very much like to better understand how you obtain theappearance of chance from purely static relations. I ask this as Isimply do not see how you can claim to explain actions in terms ofpurely non-active relations. Craig's ideas assume activity at aprimitive level and thus puts his considerations at odds withyours in an almost irreconcilable way.There are different form of chance. A "real randomness" is given bythe first person indeterminacy bearing on all computation (aka UD*,AKA arithmetic).Yes, Craig's theory is non-comp. I suspect more and more that youdefend also non-comp, but unlike Craig, you seem to want to denythis.Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/-- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon --You received this message because you are subscribed to the GoogleGroups "Everything List" group.To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.