Re: Just a question

Hi Bruno, It is obvious to anyone that understand the notion of "numbers" because this notion of "bigger than" or greater than is enshrined in the notion of the succession of numbers. My question involves situations that can not be faithfully described only using a number. Are all relations

Re: Just a question

I suggest you abandon the notion 'bigger'. essentially because it is incompatible with the relation called 'symmetry breaking' - which is a major qualia in modern physics-math. James Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Does everyone agree with the following proposition: > > For all number x

Just a question

Does everyone agree with the following proposition: For all number x, if x is bigger than 2 then x is bigger than 1. (by "bigger" I mean strictly bigger: 17 is strictly bigger than 16, but not strictly bigger than 17). It would help me to explain some point to non logicians if

Re: Problems with the Universal Distribution

Le 16-juil.-05, à 08:29, Hal Finney a écrit : Well, there are several possible solutions to this, none of them terribly attractive. One is the possibility that our measures within the MWI are much higher than they seem, because somehow our existence is much more inevitable than we would supp

Re: is induction unformalizable?

Le 15-juil.-05, à 20:55, scerir a écrit : Ben Goertzel: but this doesn't mean induction is unformalizable, it just means that the formalization of cognitive-science induction in terms of algorithmic information theory (rather than experience-grounded semantics) is flawed... Imo, induction on

Re: Problems with the Universal Distribution

On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 11:29:01PM -0700, "Hal Finney" wrote: > Another problem is that the UDist is not unique. Every Universal Turing > Machine (UTM) produced a different UDist. The one thing you can say is > that the various flavors of UDist do agree with each other up to some > constant that

Problems with the Universal Distribution

I wrote a few days ago about the use of the Universal Distribution (UDist) in the context of a Schmidhuberian approach to the multiverse, in the UD+ASSA thread. I think it is a very attractive ontology which can go a long way to account for what we experience, as well as providing in-principle sol