On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-)
Alan Turing gets a royal pardon
And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war and
(virtually) invent computers, be driven to suicide by the police and
they've
On 24 Dec 2013, at 19:39, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
He did answer and did it correctly,
I somehow missed that post. What number did Bruno give?
I quote myself:
That's a great answer but unfortunately it's NOT a answer to
Bruno,
I have to say that basing reality on the first person experience (or
whatever) of humans
strikes me as being no different from basing wave collapse on human
consciousness.
Sorry for a naive question but that seems tio be my role on this list.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:12 AM,
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of
something, doing this processing, this work?
In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or sigma_1-complete
physical reality, in some local sense.
We need this to just explain
Richard, and Bruno,
I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing.
Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of
the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent scientists have ever
come up with. It's right up there with block time, and many
On 25 Dec 2013, at 19:26, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
The question of whether God exists is meaningless without first
giving some definition of what is meant by God, of how God is defined.
God
noun
A noise many members of
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Richard, and Bruno,
I agree with Richard here if that is actually what Bruno is doing.
Attributing wavefunction collapse to human observation was certainly one of
the most moronic 'theories' supposedly intelligent
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of something,
doing this processing, this work?
In the UDA we assume a Turing universal, or
On 25 Dec 2013, at 21:35, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Correct me if I'm wrong about where you are coming from in your
basic approach.
OK. Some other did already a good job.
Bruno seems to believe that mathematicians discover a math that
already exists in reality (as opposed to math
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience
whereas wave function collapse is an outlandish
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 02:24:04PM -0500, Edgar Owen wrote:
All,
The proof is simply the fact that the time traveling twins meet up again with
different clock times, but always in the exact same present moment. This
proves beyond any doubt there are two kinds of time, clock time which
Spudboy,
Good question.
It has to be clearly understood that an observer is always a participant in
the event he observes. An observation is always an event.
Physics tends to think of observers as standing outside the events they
observe, but what they really do is participate in subsequent
On Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:24:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/26/2013 4:25 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Spudboy,
There is no observer in the usual sense of a human observer needed for
quantum events. But in effect every participant in a quantum event acts as
an observer of that
John,
All events without exception happen in the present moment. The present
moment is the only locus of actual reality in which anything can happen.
Of course those events can happen with different clock times according to
relativistic conditions in different frames, but they always happen in
On 25 Dec 2013, at 22:29, LizR wrote:
Bruno assumes a very minimal maths (peano arithmetic I believe)
many variant are possible, but for the ontology I like to take
Robinson arithmetic, which can be roughly presented in this way:
0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) - x = y
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
Brent,
Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity!
Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's
quite easy to understand really. There has to be something happening in
Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here on earth for
cosmology to make
Brent,
A more general approach than Wheeler's is to understand that all
participants in every event, even down to the particle level, are
effectively observers of that event.
I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every
connected network of events essentially
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume
that the only things that exist are those that must exist (in this
case some simple numerical relations). This seems to me to be a good
starting hypothesis - show that some specific
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you
don't express them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what
you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is
But you haven't really given an argument for why there has to be something
happening in Andromeda right now simultaneously with what's happening here
on earth for cosmology to make sense--that seems to be just an assertion
of faith on your part. Cosmology is perfectly coherent as an attempt to
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All events without exception happen in the present moment.
An event is specified by a unique time and space, a asteroid crashing into
Chicxulub 66 million years ago was an event, but it did not happen in the
present
On 12/27/2013 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-)
Alan Turing gets a royal pardon
And about bloody time! (Virtually) win the second world war
I do not know if it matters but quantum mechanics is based on the Dirac
equation, not Shrodinger's equation
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2
On 26 Dec 2013, at 19:06, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason, and Bruno,
I went through Bruno's paper which is interesting but speculative
and based, as he admits, on a number of unestablished assumptions.
Yes. yes doctor + Church's thesis, in the UD Argument , and only
elementary arithmetic
Very good, Edgar. Do you now consider Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic
Principle, to not be involved as an observer, but instead, an
unconscious participant? As merely a point of laser light striking an
unaware photo-receptor? It is there to measure, but no cognition
behind it.
Mitch
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
different than nothing, (that is, something) instead of nothing (that is
the most
On 12/27/2013 9:18 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
Neither of the first 2 points you make here seem correct to me but you don't express
them clearly enough for me to know why you are saying what you are saying.
As to the first point, the present moment is self-evident direct experience
On 12/27/2013 9:55 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
Thank goodness, some sanity and clarity!
Yes, you are correct and that is pretty much what I'm talking about. It's quite easy to
understand really. There has to be something happening in Andromeda right now
simultaneously with what's
Brent: But it's also divided up according to the probability measure, so I
don't think conservation laws are violated in Everett's formulation.
Richard: I do not understand how it is divided up according to the
probability measure.
For example in the Schrodinger Cat experiment, the cat is 50%
On 12/27/2013 10:06 AM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
I generalize Wheeler's statement in my book on Reality to explain how every connected
network of events essentially functions as a mini-reality accessible only to event
participants of their networks, and it is only through networks connecting
Thi common present moment (CPM for short?) sounds like something introduced
to make the universe seem more intuitively obvious. There is no reason I
know of (theoretical or experimental) to suggest that it really does exist,
and several reasons (theoretical and experimental) to suggest that it
Turing is just a particularly vivid case - a poster boy - for the
injustice suffered by I believe something like 50,000 people (I guess Oscar
Wilde was an earlier one).
As Brent pointed out, Turing may not have killed himself like Snow White
biting a poisoned apple, as per the popular image,
On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem
strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds.
Actually, I have wondered about this. How do all these threads of
The Tao that can be named...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make
an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could
show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer,
would generate a description of the interaction of several
On 28 December 2013 07:11, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 23:54, LizR wrote:
Arithmetical reality theories like comp and Tegmark's MUH assume that the
only things that exist are those that must exist (in this case some simple
numerical relations). This seems to me
On 28 December 2013 08:23, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Non existence can not exist. but non existence is not the same than
nothing. Nothing can exist . it is not the same than non existence because
something exist: nothing. therefore the question why there are things
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might
make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme
could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if
Dear LizR,
Multi-solipsism, exactly! We each live in our very own world and all
interactions between pairs of separable entities are supported at lower
levels where the pair collapse to a single entity. This would be very
similar to Bruno's substitution level.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might
make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering
Dear Jason,
Interleaving below.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not
On 28 December 2013 12:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might
All,
I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal present
moment across so here's another approach with a thought experiment
To start consider two observers standing next to each other. Do they share
the same common present moment? Yes, of course. Any disagreement?
On 28 December 2013 12:57, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I haven't made any progress getting the idea of a common universal present
moment across so here's another approach with a thought experiment
Au contraire, the idea is really simple, and I imagine everyone
Have you considered that people understand what you mean, but just don't
*agree* with your intuition? I am an eternalist rather than a presentist
(see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#PreEteGroUniThe or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(philosophy_of_time) and
Brent,
That's not what I say but roughly true. However the classical world is
mostly a construct of internal mental models of the external computational
reality rather than being an actual external physical world.
When we study how minds simulate and model external reality this becomes
clear
Mitch,
Glad you seem to agree. I don't think about in those Wheelerian terms but
that sounds pretty consonant with my thinking but there is a lot more to it
as explained in Part III, Elementals of my book...
Best,
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 2:13:29 PM UTC-5, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Decoherence is a well verified mathematical theory with predictable
results, and
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
Interleaving below.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they just
interact via the process of decoherence to produce discrete actual
(measurable/observable) dimensional relationships between particles.
Jason,
You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains
the program that is identical to your mind.
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've
heard here today in all manner of respects!
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:56:44 PM
On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the
program that is identical to your mind.
To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences etc are a
form of computation at some level, the
On 28 December 2013 14:03, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind.
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've
heard here today in all
Jason,
See my new topic what is a wavefunction for my reply
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:01:04 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Edgar L. Owen edga...@att.netjavascript:
wrote:
Jason,
To address one of your points wavefunctions never collapse they
Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental
error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not
called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the
same time across the universe for all observers. Rather, no two events can
ever
On 28 December 2013 14:09, Pierz pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental
error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But it's not
called P-time, it's called U-time and every moment does not occur at the
same time across the
All,
I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because he
brings up a very important issue.
The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread
out' in the fixed common pre-existing space that quantum theory mistakenly
assumes, that they are
PIerz,
Thanks for the laugh, though something smells fishy about your argument!
Though clocks measure only clock time it is clear that present time exists
as it is the most fundamental experience of our existence. Second P-time
can be measured by Omega, the curvature of our hyperspherical
Liz,
Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which
it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for
relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event,
and then ONLY in the case that relativistic frames are different. When the
Pierz,
Thanks for the laugh, but there is something very fishy about your PU
theory!
:-)
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 8:09:24 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:
Edgar is on the right track, but I need to point out his fundamental
error. There is indeed a different time from clock time. But
Hi Jason,
I snipped the portion of the thread out to cut of the tail... Interleaving
in Blue.
I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that
most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and
short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much
On 28 December 2013 14:44, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Liz,
Not at all. What SR shows that there are relativistic situations in which
it is impossible to establish simultaneous clock time t values, for
relativistic observers to agree on the clock time t value of some event,
and
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
All,
I'm starting a new topic on wavefunctions in this reply to Jason because
he brings up a very important issue.
The usual interpretation of wavefunctions are that particles are 'spread
out' in the fixed common
There is certainly evidence that particles are small amounts of digital
information. Garrett Lisi's ESTOE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Exceptionally_Simple_Theory_of_Everything for
example assumes this, and it is part of the support for mathematical
theories of reality like Tegmark's (imho).
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind.
My apologies, I meant the UD which short for Universal Dovetailer, not
the UDA, which is the
On 28 December 2013 14:19, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
enables us to conceptually unify GR and QM and also resolves all so called
quantum 'paradox' as quantum processes are paradoxical ONLY with respect to
the fixed pre-existing space mistakenly assumed.
I would expect any
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as UD* - I
made the same mistake!) will *eventually* contain your mind. See my
previous post for an elaboration.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as
On 28 December 2013 15:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
This is something that I also find it rather hard
I think friending is something to do with facebook, or similar social
media, so I think SPK is saying that programmes which reference other
programmes give them more reality. (Or something like that! :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
2. Determined by which observer? The cat is always either dead or alive.
It's just a matter of someone making a measurement to find out.
3. Of course quantum computers are possible. Simple examples already exist,
but fundamentally all computations
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if
I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on.
Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it
PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made
of that? :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 5:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
PS just to give a flavour here is one of my posts :-)
Alan Turing gets a royal pardon
And about bloody time!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Turing is just a particularly vivid case - a poster boy - for the
injustice suffered by I believe something like 50,000 people (I guess Oscar
Wilde was an earlier one).
Yes. Sometimes our species is really nothing to write home
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your
interpretation address the EPR paradox (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox )? As a previously
Jason,
PS to answer your other question. In the double slit experiment there is no
pre-existing dimensional space for the electron to be in more than one
place in. Everything is being computed exactly in the fundamental
non-physical dimensionless information space. What we call space is
On 28 December 2013 16:26, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
Answers to your 3 questions.
1. No.
If there are no faster-than-light (FTL) influences, then how does your
interpretation address the
Liz,
What I haven't deciphered in Lisi's theory is what its elementals are. He
seems to have come up with a set of elemental particle properties that
populate his E8 group exactly and completely but they do not all appear to
be commonly recognized particle properties such as charges, spins,
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is accessible. How?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if
I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on.
Once it
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are.
this also captures
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies
if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state
of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and
Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can
evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of
Yeah, sorry, I re-read your post and realised I'd misunderstood, so I
deleted my post (thinking you hadn't replied...I forgot the time delay and
the fact we're in different reference frames :)
On 28 December 2013 16:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th
state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel
and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a
Cool!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:52 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to
a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any
Jason,
All your questions assume a pre-existing space that doesn't actually exist.
When it is recognized that space emerges from events rather than being a
fixed background to them these questions disappear.
E.g. in the EPR 'paradox' the opposite spin relationship of the two
particles is
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th
state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how?
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers. (Consider
OTP encryptions).
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and
Hi jason,
Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of deterministic
are you using?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:54 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 16:44, Stephen Paul King
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi jason,
Do programs have to be deterministic. What definition of deterministic
are you using?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:00 PM, Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th
state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel
and Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could contain a
source of genuine randomness, in principle.
I don't think the UD does, however.
The definition of deterministic would be - gives the same output on each
run (given that the UD has no input).
On 28 December 2013 17:03,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers. (Consider
OTP encryptions).
By we do you mean the UD or something else?
Jason
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Jason Resch
Jason,
Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it.
According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD
stuff, but the truth is that in actual computational reality every logical
element functions as a processor so all computations proceed at once
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers to
anything that is true or not, only what its particular value happens to
be. No no no! We can not make statements without showing how their proof
are accessible!
Consider the i-th through j_th values of pi's expansion
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
