It seems to me Olympia is a simple table lookup for the input, the argument
he uses to place it in the oracle camp seems invalid to me, he posits that
he is able to construct a lookup table that contains the result of the
halting problem... and because such table is a lookup table, all lookup
On 16 June 2014 22:44, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
Liz, have you Kiwis no sense of shame?
http://news.yahoo.com/zealand-may-kick-start-race-mine-ocean-floor-211229873--finance.html;_ylt=AwrBJR66KJ5Taz0APtTQtDMD
Ah, Kiwis,weak link, in the global
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:27:48PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
What is baffling to me is that photosynthesis in algae relies on
absorption in the red and blue part of the spectrum, but reflects
the big green part in between?? Why didn't it evolve another
pigment to capture that in order to live
Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia
performs.
In contrast, no Turing Machine could be so trivially upgraded: no amount
of
Mind you anyone who uses The Cyberiad for his names (or indeed The
Sandman for that matter) is OK with me.
On 18 June 2014 20:40, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only
I suppose the Sun's spectral characteristics might have changed a bit since
chlorophyll evolved - though I wouldn't think *that* much. However, I agree
with Brent - I would think that any plant that evolved the ability to
absorb green light (not to mention infra red and all the other EM radiation
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:06:00PM +1200, LizR wrote:
I suppose the Sun's spectral characteristics might have changed a bit since
chlorophyll evolved - though I wouldn't think *that* much. However, I agree
with Brent - I would think that any plant that evolved the ability to
absorb green light
2014-06-18 10:40 GMT+02:00 LizR lizj...@gmail.com:
Changing Olympia to a machine that computed non-Turing-Computable
functions would be a trivial matter: one would need to change only the
value stored in the oracle, not the computational activity Olympia
performs.
In contrast, no Turing
*arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf*
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348]
Title: Our Mathematical Universe?
Authors: *Jeremy Butterfield*
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Butterfield_J/0/1/0/all/0/1
Comments: 17 pages, no figures, *this http URL*
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Kim Jones kimjo...@ozemail.com.au wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 10:02 pm, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well
understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that
True. Notice please that the elites are not exploring and funding fixes as you
or I would. They will be forced to with the Antarctica process.
At this moment the big threats seem to be resource depletion and climate
change. If we can face up to them and tackle them, we'll be better prepared
N! Its probably benighn as the environment around black smokers, is
volcanic, and biology adapted mightily to heat, acidity, low oxygen.
It appears this proposal has been rejected by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
I read the first 3 steps, Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is
built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to
keep reading a proof, any proof, after a mistake has been found.
That's fair
More important the mere Oracle Machinery are O-regions, which were conjectured
about 14 years ago bt Gauriga and Vilenkin.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0102010.pdf
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Jun 18,
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
Clock speeds may be effected but not time. Time passes at the same rate
everywhere in our Universe.
Light travels through
Nothing about only 37 bits of information available for computation in the
human brain in Butterfield's paper.
Richard
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, ronaldheld ronaldh...@gmail.com wrote:
*arXiv:1406.4348* http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4348 [*pdf*
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4348]
Title: Our
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential equations
better than Mathematica? I don't think so.
Not me personally, but the professional mathematicians studying DEs
definitely.
Bullshit.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
Clock speeds may be effected but not time.
OK fine, but if it's not time then we're going to need a new word to
describe whatever it is that clocks
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
OK fine, but can you find the exact solutions to differential
equations better than Mathematica? I don't think so.
Not me personally,
Among computet administrators, there is an old say :
Jesus saves. But only Buddah perform incremental backups
El 12/06/2014 03:23, LizR lizj...@gmail.com escribió:
In Lisp, god can define himself.
On 12 June 2014 13:08, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk.
No problem.
The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious,
always show up
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this
later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, ghi...@gmail.com
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:
most people can't juggle 5 balls. A few people can, but nobody thinks
they are creative because of it.
I think you'd have to admit that all else being equal juggling is more
creative than not juggling, at least a
On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is löbian
in the sense that the theorems of K are closed for the Löb rule: if
K proves []A - A,
On 16 Jun 2014, at 19:57, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
If free will just means will then why stick on the free ?
Because we believe that free does not add anything,
Except bafflegab.
Only because you quote an half
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:46, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Free-will or will are high level cognitive ability of machine
having enough introspective ability.
But not to much! :-)
Indeed :-)
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 13 Jun 2014, at 21:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/13/2014 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Jun 2014, at 01:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/12/2014 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Actually Grim and another guy studied version of Gödel and Löb
theorem in fuzzy logic (meaning that they
On 18 Jun 2014, at 00:41, LizR wrote:
On 18 June 2014 04:23, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Other that the fact than your use of personal pronouns was
inexcusably sloppy and inconsistent for a good logician, I have long
On 18 Jun 2014, at 15:26, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
I read the first 3 steps, Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof
is built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be
idiotic to keep reading a proof, any proof,
On 18 Jun 2014, at 02:19, chris peck wrote:
That is logically impossible from the first person point of view.
You describe the 3p view only.
Nice straw man! Whats practically impossible is for one point of
view to simultaneously accomodate the experience of both surviving
and dieing.
On 18 Jun 2014, at 04:13, LizR wrote:
[That paper]
(my head)
Well, mine too. (even without paper).
Other comments more later,
Bruno
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups Everything List group.
To
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Jun 2014, at 19:51, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Thanks. It looks interesting. K is amazing by itself. It is löbian in
the sense that
From: Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping
the quantum trickery of certain algae (cryptophytes
As far as I can see the only connection here is the fact they both used the
letter O. O-regions are interesting of course but don't appear to be
relevant to the current discussion?
On the subject of O-machines, in the case of Olympia I believe this is a TM
with access to a trace from another TM.
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all
non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based
on
On 19 June 2014 02:47, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
Clock speeds may be effected but not time.
OK fine, but if it's not time then we're
On 19 June 2014 01:26, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:41 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote
:
I read the first 3 steps, Bruno made blunders in step 3; a proof is
built on the foundations of previous steps therefor it would be idiotic to
keep reading a
PS I must say I find step 3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp.
Presumably you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two
steps. Most people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go
for the MGA (i.e. the reversal - the argument that we don't need a
physical universe).
On 19 June 2014 01:21, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
True. Notice please that the elites are not exploring and funding fixes as
you or I would. They will be forced to with the Antarctica process.
I wouldn't have been fulminating about the elites not
On 19 June 2014 01:25, spudboy100 via Everything List
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:
N! Its probably benighn as the environment around black smokers,
is volcanic, and biology adapted mightily to heat, acidity, low oxygen.
The proposal I saw involved dredging up iron sands,
On 19 June 2014 06:52, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Quantum logic usually designates the logical structure associated to the
lattice of the subspaces of an (infinite dimensional) Hilbert space, where
lives the atomic physical states (the rays, or unit vectors, the so called
pure
On 19 June 2014 06:28, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
It just hard to interview the machine on GR and compare.
I read a SF novel in which life was created from lots of mini black holes
(Raft I think). Maybe you can build a Turing machine using just GR.
--
You received this message
On 19 June 2014 03:30, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
Among computet administrators, there is an old say :
Jesus saves. But only Buddah perform incremental backups
That made me LOL.
Wasn't the other one Jesus saves, but Pele scores on the rebound (or
insert name of
This is why when someone asks me what I will be doing over the holidays I
am tempted to reply that I will be going away, not going away, crowned
Empress of the Universe, killed in a car crash, spontaneously combusting,
being kidnapped by aliens, having a conversion experience, and many other
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to
this
On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:00:03 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
PS I must say I fin3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp. Presumably
you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two steps. Most
people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go for the MGA
(i.e. the
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
On 19 June 2014 02:01, jr...@trexenterprises.com javascript: wrote:
My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
relativity theories is faulty.
In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:45 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Solar power's bright future [ may be brighter thanks to us aping
the quantum trickery of certain algae
49 matches
Mail list logo
