2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: > > On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > >> 2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona <[email protected]>: >>> 2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> On 09 Jan 2014, at 23:00, Stephen Paul King wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear LizR, >>>>> >>>>> That is the key question that remains, IMHO, unanswered. >>>> >>>> It is answered, completely. >>>> >>> >>> Stephen, LizR >>> >>> From what I can understand, once cleared from >>> arithmetic-logic-metaphysic misticism, the determination of the laws >>> from infinite "competitive" computations follow Solomonoff's theorem >>> of inductive inference. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff >>> 's_theory_of_inductive_inference >>> >>> Or it should. But the problem is that Bruno did not gives a weight >>> for >>> each computation in order to stablish the outcome of what the pencil >>> does in the air. Neither the algorithmic complexity of each >>> computation (Solomonoff) nor any other. Therefore, it is a complete >>> chaos cut by some magic 1p collapse of computations, following QM >>> fashion. And there is where the aritmetic-logic-metaphysic mysticism >>> does his job. >>> >> >> ... Job that I do not know how it is possible if a computation that >> does everithing OK until it convert the pencil in a fat female soprano >> (with big algorithmic complexity) is equally compatible with all my 1p >> observations until that moment, is equally probable than the >> computation with much less algorithmic complexity that does its job >> right and moves the pencil gracefully without emitting molesting >> noises. >> >> So anything goes > > Yes, that is the white rabbit problem. Most of my earlier posts on > this list has consisted in explaining why algorithmic complexity > cannot work. It surely plays some role, but we have to extract it from > the redundancy, no imposed it, as this would mock the consciousness > invariance, and the FPI invariance which follows from comp. > Of course, if you think you can eliminate the white rabbit with only > algorithmic complexity, please do, but you will have to explain why > the 'non algorithmically simple programs' do no more interfere with > the FPI global indeterminacy, and by the delay invariance for the 1p > experiences, that does not seem obvious at all. > You do seem close to grasp the problem.
In any case the problem is in your theory. QM predict a infinite small probability for white rabbits, while yours infer a decent amount of them until some cut criteria emerges. And that is not my work, but yours. What is FPI? Although it often seems so, this is not a group devoted to obtaining a certification on Bruno Marchall comp theories. You have to be more didactic and can not rely on your writings when asking concrete questions. If the number of acronyms + theology, logic and psychologic concepts mixed in single statements grows when the conversation gets more concrete, then it is no surprise that people don´t understand you. There are many didactic tricks that you refuse to use like metaphors and examples. And this gives to me the impression that you are hiding consciously or uncosnciously a great flaw. And my observation is that no one understand you in what is original in your theory. Apart from the brilliant and interesting first steps. That is why I read you with attention. But until now I don´t find a satisfactory explanation and you confess that there is not, for the abundance of white rabbits in your theory. You simply say: the fact that we have no fat soprano singers and white rabbits aroud, and the fact that comp is true (sorry, it is a theory that all of us must assume if we are gong to talk in this list) means that comp have no such flaw and is a task of everyone to find how. No . It is a task of yourself. >From my side, I have my own explanation of why algorithmic complexity plays a role in solomonoff theory of universal induction, without taking it as an axiom .. And this is the computational nature of life. That is not the immaterial computation of yours, but the material computation subject to resource limits of biological systems. I did my job. http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com.es/2008/06/ockham-razor-and-genetic-algoritms-life.html I simply ask for yours. > > Bruno > > > >> >> -- >> Alberto. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >> send an email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
