2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>
> On 10 Jan 2014, at 10:52, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
>> 2014/1/10, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com>:
>>> 2014/1/10, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>:
>>>>
>>>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to