I would say 0:
0. All a Coincidence (I don't see *big* coincidences)
and then 5.
I'm agnostic about what you talk about. I love the book by Suzanne
Blackmore In search of the light because it shows parapsychology can
be done seriously, but then the evidence are until today rather
At 12:50 AM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
A couple of hours ago, I was speaking to a young man who informed me that
he can predict the future: he has visions or dreams, and they turn out to
be true. I asked him for an example of this ability. He thought for a
moment, explaining that there were
Hi Brent,
Le 05-juin-05, à 13:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:02 AM
To: Hal Finney
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 05-juin-05, à
It sounds like an incredible coincidence, but you also have to take into
account all the *other* stories which did not turn out to be anywhere near
the truth. A long enough sequence of random data will always produce
apparently non-random results. In fact, this seems counterintuitive to most
Le 06-juin-05, à 07:14, rmiller a écrit :
Slip-ups aside, I would like to see a rigorous application of the
powerful tools of philosophy, logic and mathematics applied to the
study areas of social science, i.e. the real world. Physicists are
great at telling us why the rings of Saturn have
Le 05-juin-05, à 17:30, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A
WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A
MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
Hal Finney writes:
There are a few unintuitive consequences, though, such as that large
instantiations of OMs will have more measure than small ones, and likewise
slow ones will have more measure than fast ones. This is because in each
case the interpretation
-Original Message-
From: Stathis Papaioannou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 5:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Hypotheses
A couple of hours ago, I was speaking to a young man who informed me that he
can
Russell Standish writes:
I was not aware of the Born rule having been derived multiple times
(although I'm not too suprised if that is the case). Do you have any
references? The Born rule is one of the things I derive in my Why
Occam's paper.
I just have a couple of recent references, but
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
I am beginning to regret calling the all descriptions ensemble with
uniform measure a Schmidhuber ensemble. I think what I meant was that
it could be generated by a standard dovetailer algorithm, running for
2^\aleph_0 timesteps.
It can't!
Le 06-juin-05, à 01:40, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What do you take to be the standard definition of knows? Is it X
knows Y
iff X believes Y is true and Y is true?
That's the one by Theaetetus.
Or do you include Gettier's
amendment, X knows Y iff X believes Y is true and Y is true and
There
Hal Finney writes:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
Hal Finney writes:
There are a few unintuitive consequences, though, such as that large
instantiations of OMs will have more measure than small ones, and
likewise
slow ones will have more measure than fast ones. This is because in
each
case
Hal,
I agree. It seems clear to me that the urge of nature to increase the
entropy of the universe is the engine behind everything we see happening,
including life and evolution. Why did life occur? Why, to increase the
entropy of the universe!
How did life occur? Well, you mix some
Norman Samish wrote:
If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller,
which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an
argument in support of perpetual expansion.
From what I've read, if the universe began contracting this would not
necessarily
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller,
which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an
argument in support of perpetual expansion.
From what I've read, if the universe began
Hello everyone,
I have an M.S. in Mathematics. I've done casual reading, e.g. The Loss of Certainty (Kline), The Emperor's New Mind (Penrose), The Elegant Universe (Greene),Pensees (Pascal), lots of papers online.
Tom Caylor
...but of courseexplanation is more fundamental than prediction.
Tom Caylor-Original Message-From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: everything-list@eskimo.comSent: Sun, 5 Jun 2005 10:24:42 -0700Subject: Against Fundamentalism!
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But in general,
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A quantum
fluctuation of virtual particles I'm told.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Whoever told you that was passing off speculation as fact--in fact there
is no agreed-upon answer to the question of
Norman Samish wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A quantum
fluctuation of virtual particles I'm told.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Whoever told you that was passing off speculation as fact--in fact there
is no agreed-upon answer
Johnathan Corgan writes:
As I'm sure many on the list are familiar, David Brin's Kiln People is
an interesting science fiction treatment of similar issues.
It is an interesting story which helps to make some of our philosophical
thought experiments more concrete. Making copies, destroying
Norman Samish wrote:
If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller,
which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an
argument in support of perpetual expansion.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
From what I've read, if the universe began
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang come from? A quantum
fluctuation of virtual particles I'm told.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Whoever told you that was passing off speculation as
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 07:53 PM
Subject: RE: where did the Big Bang come from?
Norman Samish wrote:
Norman Samish wrote:
And where did this mysterious Big Bang
On Jun 5, 2005, at 11:14 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:I would say 0: 0. All a Coincidence (I don't see *big* coincidences) and then 5.I'm agnostic about what you talk about. I love the book by Suzanne Blackmore "In search of the light" because it shows parapsychology can be done seriously, but then
At 03:01 PM 6/6/2005, Pete Carlton wrote:
(snip)
The point is, there are enough stories published in any year that it would
be a trivial matter to find a few superficial resemblances between any
event and a story that came before it.
my second comment. . .if it's such a trivial matter, then
Norman Samish:
Norman Samish wrote:
If the universe started contracting, its entropy would get smaller,
which nature doesn't allow in large-scale systems. This seems to me an
argument in support of perpetual expansion.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
From what I've read, if the
Jesse has it right on here, and one can go even further in this vein. You are impressed by the relationship between one particular story and one particular event - but you hand-picked both the story and the event for discussion here because of their superficial similarities. You challenged me to
At 03:58 PM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
rmiller wrote:
At 03:01 PM 6/6/2005, Pete Carlton wrote:
(snip)
The point is, there are enough stories published in any year that it
would be a trivial matter to find a few superficial resemblances between
any event and a story that came before it.
Let's
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
I am beginning to regret calling the all descriptions ensemble with
uniform measure a Schmidhuber ensemble. I think what I meant was that
it could be generated by a standard
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:51:36PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Another area I had trouble with in Russell's answer was the concept of
a prefix map. I understand that a prefix map is defined as a mapping
whose domain is finite bit strings such that none of them are a prefix
of any other. But
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:40:03PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...but of course explanation is more fundamental than prediction.
Tom Caylor
I wouldn't say that! Both of these properties are orthogonal to each
other. Typical scientific theories exist on a tradeoff curve (Pareto
front
At 06:56 PM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
Jesse has it right on here, and
one can go even further in this vein. You are impressed by the
relationship between one particular story and one particular event - but
you hand-picked both the story and the event for discussion here
because of their superficial
Pete Carlton wrote:
Jesse has it right on here, and one can go even further in this vein. You
are impressed by the relationship between one particular story and one
particular event - but you hand-picked both the story and the event for
discussion here because of their superficial
Welcome to the list Tom,
I agree with you. Explanation is much more important. It is also much more difficult to agree on what *is* a good explanation. Prediction could remain important, at least in principle, to possibly destroy our favorite explanation, or to put doubt on them. Have you read
34 matches
Mail list logo
