On 18 Sep., 16:23, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So without putting any
extra-stcruture on the set of infinite strings, you could as well have
taken as basic in your ontology the set of subset of N, written P(N).
Now, such a set is not even nameable in any first order theory. In a
On Sep 19, 1:18 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marc:
The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are
static elements of the power set.
My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change -
they can be the current state of a something on its path to
On Sep 19, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Schmidhuber and me do agree on comp (100%
agreement: we have the same hypothesis). And relatively to the comp hyp
and the importance of the universal machine Schmidhuber and me are much
closer than with Tegmark whi is just very
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field,
but, as you have already acknowledge, there is some lack in rigor in
it, and it is not even clear if eventually you are of the ASSA type or
RSSA type, or
On 18/09/2007, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What remains unclear in this definition is the term reference class
which is also the source of the ASSA/RSSA debate. When we want to know
which observer moment to expect next, we look at the class of all
observer moments provided with a
Le 19-sept.-07, à 09:59, Youness Ayaita wrote (in two posts):
You mentioned the ASSA. Yesterday, motivdated by your hint, I have
read about the ASSA/RSSA debate that is said to have divided the list
into two camps. Since I have trouble with the reasoning I read, I will
probably send a new
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 19-sept.-07, 09:59, Youness Ayaita wrote (in two posts):
Probably, we
won't find the set of natural numbers within this universe, the number
of identical particles (as far as we can talk about that) of any kind
is finite.
Not in all "models"
[I want to first note for the benefit of readers that I am Hal Finney
and no relation to Hal Ruhl - it can be confusing having two Hal's on
the list!]
Rolf Nelson writes:
UDASSA (if I'm interpreting it right, Hal?) says:
1. The measure of programs that produce OM (I am experiencing A, and
I
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:33PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
The lifetime formulation also captures the intuition many people have
that consciousness should not jump around as observer moments are
created in the various simulations and scenarios we imagine in our
thought experiments. That was
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:48:58AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote:
So, I don't see any need for some kind of fundamental measure for
observer moments. Whenever we have a restriction defining a subclass
of observer moments that are of interest, we are naturally driven to
the RSSA and to a
10 matches
Mail list logo
