On 07 May 2015, at 00:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote:
You said the dovetailer "leads to an irreduciable indeterminism",
but if the machine is finite then a faster but still finite
computer could predict what the dovetailer will do; it still could
not of course predict what "you" will see nex
Even worse it cannot predict even the probabilities that a given
states of consciousness (or the universe as a whole) is followed by
some other state, because the UD would have to reach a point from
which it would not revisit the given state again and change the
statistics of the successor states. But this is never the case for
the non-terminating programs. Every state may be visited infinitely
many times as the UD runs and so the statistics are always subject
to change.
Not at all. By the first person invariance for the delays, the
statistics are defined at the limit.
Of course one may say there must be a class of states that are
statistically stable and there must be a finite measure for them -
but only if the theory is true.
Which is the point.
Bruno
Brent
--
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
