### RE: Re: The number 8. A TOE?

Hal Finney wrote: Bruno Marchal writes: Methodologically your ON theory suffers (at first sight)the same problem as Wolfram, or Schmidhuber's approaches. The problem consists in failing to realise the fact that if we are turing-emulable, then the association between mind-dynamics and

### RE: Re: The number 8. A TOE?

Ben Goertzel wrote: Bruno wrote: *** Let me insist because some people seem not yet grasping fully that idea. In fact that 1/3-distinction makes COMP incompatible with the thesis that the universe is a machine. If I am a machine then the universe cannot be a machine. No machine can simulate the

### RE: Re: The number 8. A TOE?

See my web page for links to papers, and archive addresses with more explanations, including the basic results of my thesis. (Mainly the Universal Dovetailer Argument UDA and its Arithmetical version AUDA). I read your argument for the UDA, and there's nothing there that particularly

### re:RE: Re: The number 8. A TOE?

Ben Goertzel writes: I read your argument for the UDA, and there's nothing there that particularly worries me. Good. I don't like to worry people. (Only those attached dogmatically to BOTH comp AND the existence of a stuffy substancial universe should perhaps be worried). You seem to be

### Re: turing machines = boolean algebras ?

Dear Ben and Bruno, Your discussions are fascinating! I have one related and pehaps even trivial question: What is the relationship between the class of Turing Machines and the class of Boolean Algebras? Is one a subset of the other? Kindest regards, Stephen

### RE: turing machines = boolean algebras ?

Essentially, you can consider a classic Turing machine to consist of a data/input/output tape, and a program consisting of -- elementary tape operations -- boolean operations I.e. a Turing machine program is a tape plus a program expressed in a Boolean algebra that includes some tape-control

### The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines?

Dear Ben, So you are writing that the class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines? Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 26,

### RE: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines?

The statement Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines doesn't seem quite right to me, I guess there's some kind of logical typing involved there. A Turing machine is a kind of machine [albeit mathematically modeled], whereas a boolean algebra is an algebra. Boolean algebra

### Re: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines?

Dear Ben, So then it is: Boolean Algebras /equivalent Turing Machines in the mathematical sense. I am asking this to try to understand how Bruno has a problem with BOTH comp AND the existence of a stuffy substancial universe. It seems to me that the term machine very much requires

### RE: The class of Boolean Algebras are a subset of the class of Turing Machines?

Among other things, Bruno is pointing out that if we assume everything in the universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's, the distinction btw subjective and objective reality is lost, and there's no way to distinguish simulated physics in a virtual reality from real physics. I

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

Dear Ben, I agree completely with that aspect of Bruno's thesis. ;-) It is the assumption that the 0's and 1's can exist without some substrate that bothers me. If we insist on making such an assuption, how can we even have a notion of distinguishability between a 0 and a 1?. To me, its

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, titled quantum computational cosmology why don't we assume/guess that the substrate (the fundamental concept of the universe or multiverse) is simply a capacity for there to be difference, but also, a capacity for all possible differences (and thus necessarily

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

Dear Eric, I like your idea! But how do we reconsile your notion with the notion expressed by Russell: From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: Re: not-sets, not-gates, and the universe There is no problem is

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

It works because no observer can possibly see the whole of the Plenitude, only subsets. The subsets do contain information. Of course, people who believe in an omniscient God will have trouble with this :). Cheers Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Eric,

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

Dear Russell, Bingo! But can a method of definig the subsethood be defined? What distinguishes one subset from another? Kindest regards, Stephen - Original Message - From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL

### Fw: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

- Original Message - From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Eric Hawthorne [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; echo-CI [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:56 PM Subject: Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

In my paper Why Occam's Razor, I identify a postulate called the projection postulate, which in words is something like An observer necessarily projects out an actual from the space of possibilities Mathematically, this corresponds to choosing a subset from the set of all descriptions. My paper

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

Stephen, Eric is taking the quest to its logical conclusion. Even Steve Wolfram hints that pure space is the source of all instantiation. So the only question that needs resolution is specifying the natural of the architecture of that space - and - identifying how it brings entities forces,

### Re: The universe consists of patterns of arrangement of 0's and 1's?

Dear Russell, Neat! I have been thinking of this idea in terms of a very weak anthropic principle and a communication principle. Roughtly these are: All observations by an observer are only those that do not contradict the existence of the observer and any communication is only that which

### Re: emergence (or is that re-emergence)

Let me first apologize for not yet reading the mentioned references on the subject, John Mikes wrote: As long as we cannot qualify the steps in a 'process' leading to the emerged new, we call it emergence, later we call it process. Just look back into the cultural past, how many