On 08 May 2015, at 22:18, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/8/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
But that sounds like another instance of reversing the argument:
There must be stable statistics in the limit because my theory is
true and if there weren't stable statistics it wouldn't work.
Exactly. We call that logic. IF comp then there is that statistics.
Then AUDA shows how to get the logic of the measure one, and find
three candidate wit already the quantization needed.
But your wording seems a bit disingenuous, and incorrect. I never say
that comp is true (comp1 is true), I say that comp implies physics is
giuven by the stat on the sigma_1 sentences *as seen from* the first
person points of view. I use then the fact that incompleteness
guarantie the existence of those points of view, when we used the
standard "greek" definitions (use by many modern).
It is not my theory, and I am not among those saying that it is true
(indeed for good reasons).
But today, many believes in that theory, and I just shows the
constructive and testable consequences.
Bruno
Brent
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
--
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.
