How would they ever know that I wonder?
Well let's see. I'm conscious and I'm not fallible. Therefore ;-)
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I'm wondering whether the following demonstrates that a computer that can
only generate thoughts which are sentences derivable from some
underlying
axioms
I agree with you. Actually you can use the second recursion theorem
of Kleene to collapse all the orders. This is easier in an untyped
programming language like (pure) LISP than in a typed language,
although some typed language have a primitive for handling untyped
self-reference, like the
Dear Stephen,
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Hal, and Friends,
Were and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
first cause question?
This is a good question for a
Dear Bruno,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
Dear Stephen,
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Hal, and Friends,
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Where and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
first cause question?
Anything physical is by definition within a universe (by my definition,
Dear Hal,
A theorem doesn't weigh anything, and neither does a computation.
Nice try but that is a very smelly Red Herring. Even Conway's Life can
not exist, even in the abstract sense, without some association with the
possibility of being implemented and it is this Implementation that
The fact that an Algorithm is independent of any particular
implementation is not reducible to the idea that Algorithms (or Numbers,
or
White Rabbits, etc.) can exist without some REAL resources being used in
their implementation (and maybe some kind of thermodynamics).
To paraphrase
Dear CMR,
- Original Message -
From: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
[SPK previous]
The fact that an Algorithm is independent of any particular
implementation is not reducible to the
Pete Carlton writes:
Imagine a Life universe that contains, among other things, two SASes
talking to each other (and showing each other pictures, and in general
having a very lucid, conscious, conversation.) Imagine that instead of
being implemented on a computer, it's implemented by a
Greetings Stephen,
BTW, have you ever read about the Maxwell Demon?
Being partial to the information physical view; not only have I read it, I
also account for it by viewing a system's information as physical.
So by inference should then I be viewing the mapping of the intra and extra
universal
Greetings Pete,
If not, then can you say what it is about the active process of
flipping or laying down that counts as computation but does not count
when the stack is a static block?
I suppose I'm ultimately in the hard info physics camp, in that the
pattern's the thing; given the 2ds and
CMR writes:
Then question then becomes, I suppose, if in fact our universe is a digital
one (if not strictly a CA) havng self-consistent emergent physics, then
might it not follow that it is implemented (run?) via some extra-universal
physical processes that only indirectly correspond to ours?
Dear Hal,
Consider the last two paragraphs from one of Stephen Wolfram's papers:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html
***
Quantum and statistical mechanics involve sums over possibly infinite sets
of configurations in systems. To derive
Even if we utilize a language with reflection capability, do we still
have an underlying problem with different levels of mathematical truth
as indicated by the question of whether 3+4 equals 7?
When an expression contains a sub-expression, don't we expect to be able
to replace that
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and
existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any
comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper:
---
A
At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote:
However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to
be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random
program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that
you created the first program above is 1/2^100, and
Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote:
However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to
be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random
program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that
you created the first program above
Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term
paper really?
On a few points.
I don't believe in the point of view of nihilism because everything
will happen in the multiverse, anyway, regardless of what I do..
My reasons are a little vague, but here's a stab at it:
1.
Your conclusion that there is no scientific justification for morals of any
sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense depends on the definition of
scientific. Without morals an argument could be made that mankind would
not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is scientific
Kory said...
At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
This allows us to say the probability that an integer is even is 0.5,
or
the probability that an integer is a perfect square is 0.
But can't you use this same logic to show that the cardinality of the
even
integers is half that of the
Calm, Steve, calm. :-) Remember my comment the
other evening: It is the appropriate moment in
human thought to change the definitions of
'objective' and 'subjective'.
Implementation is the 'subjective'. Relationship
need not be. In fact, relationship is necessarily
-intangible-, but -is-
Think of it this way, what is the cardinality of the equivalence class
of representations R of, say, a 1972 Jaguar XKE, varying over *all
possible
languages* and *symbol systems*? I think it is at least equal to the
Reals.
Is this correct? If R has more than one member, how can we
And what does it say about the physical properties which are necessary
for computation? We have energy; Life has blinkiness (the degree to
which cells are blinking on and off within a structure); neither property
has a good analog in the other universe. Does the real universe win,
in terms
23 matches
Mail list logo
