On 10/28/2012 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Oct 2012, at 17:02, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/27/2012 10:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 26 Oct 2012, at 20:30, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 10/26/2012 8:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Dear Bruno and Alberto,

    I agree some what with both of you. As to the idea of a "genetic
algorithm can isolate anticipative programs", I think that anticipation is the analogue of inertia for computations, as Mach saw inertia. It is a relation between any one and the class of computations that it belongs to such that any incomplete string has a completion in the collections
of others like it. This is like an error correction or compression
mechanism.

--
Onward!

Stephen

ROGER:  For what it's worth--- like Mach's inertia, each monad
mirrors the rest of the universe.


Dear Roger,

Yes, but the idea is that the mirroring that each monad does of each other's "percepts" (not the universe per se!) is not an exact isomorphism between the monads. There has to be a difference between monads or else there is only One.

Right, and in the arithmetical Indra Net, all universal numbers are different. And the, by the first person indeterminacy it is like there is a competition between all of them to bring your most probable next "instant of life". It looks that, at least on the sharable part, there are big winners, like this or that quantum hamiltonian. But we have to explain them through the arithmetical Net structure, if we want separate properly the quanta from the qualia.

Bruno


Dear Bruno,

A slightly technical question. In the arithmetic IndraNet idea, what plays the role of the "surface" that is reflective?

reread carefully the UDA. You should understand by yourself that the "surface" role is played by the first person experience. This is due to the fact that the experience are UD-delay invariant, and is a limiting sum on the infinite works of an infinite collection of universal numbers.

Dear Bruno,

My worry is that you seem to assume the equivalent of an absolute observer that acts to distinguish the content of the first person experience (1p) from each other, as simply an inherent difference between "universal numbers". Given that one number can be used to code for other numbers, ala Godel numbering schemes, how is it that universal numbers can be said to have any thing unique that would identify them in a non-trivial way?



How do we get the numbers to appear separated from each other?

This comes from elementary arithmetic, although I am not sure why you are using of the word "appear" instead of "are".

"Are"? To who are they different? Your idea here seems to depend on a pre-established harmony like situation.


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
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.

Reply via email to