Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative
to time, and instead identifies certain similarities,
that in turn identify how quantum mechanics and classical
relativity can be unified.
I
agree that
"
As S goes
to infinity, the AI's probability would converge to 0, whereas the human's
would converge to some positive constant.
"
but this doesn't
mean induction is unformalizable, it just means that the formalization of
cognitive-science induction in terms of algorithmic
>> Correct me if wrong, but isn't the halting
problem only>> undecidable when the length of the program is
unbounded? Wouldn't the AI assign non-zero>> probability to a machine
that solved the halting problem for>> programs up to size S? (S is the
number of stars in the sky, grains of sand,>
Wei,
I
forwarded your post to a few of my colleagues, and one of them (Moshe Looks)
replied with basically the same solution as I already posted here, but in
different words...
Here
is his reply...
--
Ben
> Correct me
if wrong, but isn't the halting problem only
> undecidable
Wei,
Isn't
the moral of this story that, to any finite mind with algorithmic information I,
"uncomputable" is effectively synonymous with "uncomputable within resources
I"?
Thus,
from the perspective of a finite mind M,
A = P(
X is uncomputable)
should
be equal to
B =
P(X is unc
One day, Earth is contacted by a highly
advanced alien civilization, and they tell us that contrary to what most of us
think is likely, not all of the fundamental physical laws of our
universe are computable. Furthermore, they claim to be able to
manufacture black boxes that work as oracles
Jesse Mazer writes:
> I've sometimes thought that if uploads are ever created, and can be run in a
> simulation with time-reversible fundamental laws, it would be very
> interesting to take a snapshot at the end of a simulation and do the trick
> of reversing everything, but with a tiny perturba
Hal Finney wrote:
> True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if
> you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always
> reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each
> particle) in the final state and use that as an initial
chris peck wrote:
Hi Jesse;
we can just understand it in terms of our brains having different memories
and anticipations of the future at different points along our worldline.
I think that is necessary for an understanding of time, but insufficient.
What governs which set of memories and a
> True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if
> you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always
> reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each
> particle) in the final state and use that as an initial state for a new
chris peck wrote:
Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now'
races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any
effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At
least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension d
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
> Hal Finney wrote:
> >I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's
ensemble
> >or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
> >the descriptions of these universes.
>
> Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only univer
Hi James;
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers
I hope i am a 'conventional thinker'. It gives me reason to think im onto
something, that ive got something right. That seems to be how things become
conventional.
spatial. You and all .. con
Esteemed Prof. Standish,
Thank you for that correction. ;-) But you are missing the point that I
am trying to make here! :_(
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; "Lee Corbin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: W
Hi,
In this post I will try to make clearer my argument with Lee by using a
minimal amount of modal logic (and so it's good "revision" ;)
Then I will explain how Stathis seems to have (re)discovered, in its
"DEATH" thread, what I call sometime "The Smallest Theory of Life and
Death", or "Nea
Chris,
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:
you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
considerations of 'dimensions' - whether
Le 13-juil.-05, à 01:01, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Fabric-of-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Corbin
I don't know what you even *mean* by "QS does not reduce the number
of worlds you experience", unless you mean that nothing that I can
do affects the number
Le 13-juil.-05, à 06:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (being basically
points on a plane)
So you pretend the axiom of choice is false. It is easy to build an
ordering of the complex numbers through it.
There is no ordering *which satisfies
Le 09-juil.-05, à 16:09, David Deutsch a écrit :
On 8 Jul 2005, at 11:25am, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now - what should be done about the presentation of
this concep of "Quantum Suicide Bombing"?
By the way: The discussion is *not* about the validity
of many worlds inte
19 matches
Mail list logo
