King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that binary string refers
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
Are we confusing the real thing with the Platonic?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand
:37, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Why do real world computers use noise oracles, or their equivalent?
Do they?
I think you're thinking of real world *programmes*, ones that need to
simulate randomness - e.g. for games, or to generate encryption keys.
--
You
That is the question, isn't it!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:38, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Anything that emulates a Turing machine to sufficient accuracy (i.e.
can expand its tape as necessary). How
Ah, but they do degrade. Consider your ability to access a '80s floppy
drive's data.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:44 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe
Yeah, it is! Its about how one computer's noise is another computer's
signal!
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:44, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
I have studied encryptions. My mind is still recovering from reading
Loops are sometimes allowed as outputs of computations. :-)
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:46 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:45, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
That is the question, isn't it!
I think this thread just disappeared into its own
is
measuring that change?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:46, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Ah, but they do degrade. Consider your ability to access a '80s floppy
drive's data.
Well, that's because people haven't
http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/
:-)
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:47, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Loops are sometimes allowed as outputs of computations. :-)
I think we came out one turn higher
is a computation. Where do we find a random sequence in the
naturally ordered string of Integers?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:58 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
This is fun! :-) We must
Hi Jason,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are using
here.
Reality I normally define
Hi Brent,
What is executing it?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:13 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 7:54 PM, LizR 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
Computed how? By what?
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:30 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is CORRECT!
THe question then becomes: What is time?
It's a computed
that
is not contradictory to its existence.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:32 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:03, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are using
here.
I quite like whatever
/2013 8:37 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Why do real world computers use noise oracles, or their equivalent?
Because for some problems it is quick and easy to check a proposed
solution, but difficult to calculate one. So you generate proposed
solutions at random until one of them checks out
to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe
Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which
Dear Edger,
Where does the fire come from that animates the logic?
On Friday, December 20, 2013 6:52:54 PM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
All,
The fundamental nature of reality is examined in detail in my recent book
on Reality available on Amazon under my name.
Marchal is on the right
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
the current state of the universe. Can we get MIT physicist Seth
Lloyd to shake a stick or a laser pointer, or otherwise, display, where
this abacus dwells?
Thanks,
Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Paul King stephe...@charter.net
To: everything-list everything-list
.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message
at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any
Dear Bruno,
Does there really need to be a single level of the UD? What is the UD is
intersecting with itself an infinite number of times? Is there a
relationship. maybe an isomorphism, between the UD and the set of Godel
numbers of the UD? After all, there does not exist a unique universal
/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use
.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non
Hi Brent,
I know the difference. I am asking why? What if there is a UD related
process underlying the symmetry?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 11:18 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:34 PM, meekerdb
/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
, 2013 at 4:27 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:10 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi John,
Questions
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 2:47 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:33 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
The non
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 4:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 1:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
No no. If the mind is classical then Nature would not bother making many
different version of the same software, no? I worry that we
Its Immaterial! your question has a bad premise!
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:43 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Can you clone the number 2? Is it classical or quantum?
Brent
On 12/20/2013 2:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Numbers are no less immaterial...
On Fri, Dec 20
...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear Jason,
I think it was you that wrote (to me):
I was not defending that view, but pointing out how ridiculous it would
be to suppose mathematical truth does not exist before it is found
The inverse square law is true in Platonia. In the real world it's just a
very good approximation.
How do you know this is true?
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 7:19 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/20/2013 3:28 PM, LizR wrote:
On 21 December 2013 08:12, Stephen Paul King
stephe
/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any
, we can only do so by abstracting our own sapience out of the
universe: this is cheating don't you think?
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
I would like to say
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
No, LizR. I reject the Laplacean vision that is used to interpret the
mathematical theories. SR, GR and QM, as mathematical models
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:28 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:11, Stephen Paul King stephe
Kevin Knuth's talk: http://pirsa.org/10050054/
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi LizR,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 5:31 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 10:45, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi
!
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:45 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 12:13, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/18/2013 1:05 PM, LizR wrote:
On 19 December 2013 09:57, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
I would like to say
PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/18/2013 3:16 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
My point is not about any kind of specialness, *the same condition
follows for any frame that is consistent with the math*. There is no such
thing, mathematically, as a view from nowhere
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 December 2013 12:16, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
What else is a mathematical theory, such as SR, GR and QM, for but to
...perform
a particular calculation? This is the problem, we figure out ways
Hi Brent,
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/18/2013 4:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Ever attempt to do a particular calculation with an actual infinite
dimensional Hilbert space?
Sure.
Why not? Sure, you can mod out (using symmetries
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe
language.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us
, QM does not.
There is no such a thing as a view from nowhere nor a single narrative of
all events in a QM consistent universe.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 15:33, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Dec 16
An observer in such a univer could never count to 17...
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:42 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 15:34, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Liz,
Yes! Consider a universe with only 16 objects in it.
What about it?
--
You
:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There couldn't be an observer in such a universe, it's far too simple. But
if there was one, he could deduce the existence of 17 theoretically, and
work out its properties.
On 17 December 2013 15:48, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote
Dear LirZ,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:52 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 December 2013 16:22, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: 'There couldn't be an
observer in such a universe, it's far too simple
to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
Paul King
Senior Researcher
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
stephe...@provensecure.com
http://www.provensecure.us/
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary
No, your making the mistake of identifying a representation of a thing with
the thing. The symbol 10^80 does not have 10^80 components, so to act as it
is does...
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:29 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Stephen Paul King
:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
No, your making the mistake of identifying a representation of a thing
with the thing. The symbol 10^80 does not have 10^80 components, so to act
as it is does...
Tell me this, is the following (270
other universes? Does the first person ever to check and verify that a
number is prime, make it prime for all people, in all universes, forever?
Jason
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
I do not assume that computations can occur
I agree with Jason!
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:13 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:06 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/16/2013 10:02 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe
Hi Jason,
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Yes, but why are you being anthropocentric?
I thought that was your position, or at least (observer-centric
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated? Could not just finite
portions of some universe be simulated, that which is perceived by the
observers (however such might be defined). Why does it seem that a god's
eye view needs to be simulated? BTW, David Albert's argument
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Dec 2013, at 19:37, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Bruno,
Why does an entire universe need to be simulated?
?
If I (third person self-reference) is Turing emulable, then the entire
universe is certainly
Hi Mitch,
Great comments! I would only wonder why the BB concept is not seen, by
Susskind et al, as equivalent to the Observer Moment (or Barborian Time
Capsule) concept. My question is how do they justify the 'memory of a past
state' of a BB; or do they ignore this? Additionally, it seems
that the notion of
bisimulation between computations can be used...
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 01 Jul 2013, at 21:00, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Mitch,
Great comments! I would only wonder why the BB concept is not seen, by
Susskind et al, as equivalent
Hi Chris,
On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:03:26 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi Roger
So long as Im not a hapless monad subjected to an influx of incomplete and
distorted 'percepts' via a supreme monad, I'm more than happy to be a
Zombie. I might be dead but at least I'm not deluded and
One wonders why this simple observed fact does not percolate down to the
masses that continue to spout nonsense that is contrary to the fact. The
zero point energy is, at best, electromagnetic in nature and since it is
off-mass-shell cannot contribute to the momentum-energy source of
Hi Chris,
A few remarks.
On Monday, June 24, 2013 9:03:26 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi Roger
So long as Im not a hapless monad subjected to an influx of incomplete and
distorted 'percepts' via a supreme monad, I'm more than happy to be a
Zombie. I might be dead but at least I'm not
Ah, an even more elegant argument against ZPE than the off-mass shell
argument. Thanks for that tip, Brent. :-)
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:38 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/25/2013 1:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
One wonders why this simple observed fact does not percolate
wrote:
On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/fictionalism-**mathematics/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
A fictionalist account holds that some things
Menezes wrote:
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Jun 2013, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/8/2013 1:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes, if there was a text
:
On 08 Jun 2013, at 15:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Wrong Bruno, Flying pink elephants could be 'off mass shell', virtual
elephants. Their color is a superposition of pink and not pink, which makes
them, on average, colorless unless we look *very* carefully.
Your test for 'reality
, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Stephen, there is a problem with the format. Could you please to reformat
it as it is impossible to reply to it. Thanks.
I will answer asap, but probably not today.
best,
Bruno
On 09 Jun 2013, at 17:53, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Wrong Bruno
marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2013, at 05:15, meekerdb wrote:
On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
A fictionalist account holds that some things
I can easily prove that flying pink elephant does not exist,
as far as I am consistent.
Bruno
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Yes, if there was a text of this it would be nice... I found this:
http
...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Jun 2013, at 07:41, Stephen Paul King wrote:
If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a
flying pink elephant exists?
Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is true
(ala Bruno).
Right, but like I said, I
Hi Brent,
So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a
simulated world be? Would it exist?
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 4:39 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2013 12:03 PM, John Mikes wrote:
You are mixing conventional physicalist-materialist apples with
I am trying to make a point about existence...
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/8/2013 4:38 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Brent,
So what would a computer generated simulation of a Pink Elephant in a
simulated world be? Would it exist
smi...@zonnet.nl
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182
googlegroups.com
8:37 PM (31 minutes ago)
to everything-list
But if such a real physical pink elephant can't exist, that means that it
is not a logically consistent concept to begin with. If one starts
My complaint is that there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition of
existence!
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com
wrote:
smi...@zonnet.nl
viahttp://support.google.com/mail/bin/answer.py?hl=enctx=mailanswer=1311182
googlegroups.com
8:37 PM
appreciate to have it as URL somewhere.
John Mikes
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:
For your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E#!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
If you believe that a flying pink elephant is pink, must you believe a
flying pink elephant exists?
Yes, at least for the chap that holds the belief and the belief is true
(ala Bruno).
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 11:15 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/7/2013 4:00 PM, Stephen Paul
For your entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=TbNymweHW4E#!
--
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
How do we integrate empirical data into Bpp?
On Saturday, June 1, 2013 3:41:56 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
Russell wrote:
*...When it comes to Bp p capturing the notion of knowledge, I can see it
captures the notion of mathematical knowledge, ie true theorems, as opposed
to true conjectures,
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is a
process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable function.
No?
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05
of states in this
computation, if I understand him correctly.
Brent
On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is a
process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable function.
No?
On Mon, May 13
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions
would take an eternity to compute and that the number of such vastly
outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King
:
On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?
It computes all of them.
Brent
Sorry - it does not compute all functions, just all partially
recursive ones. As Stephen says, there are only countably many
:
Right. It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing all
possible programs - most of which don't terminate and so don't compute a
function at all.
Brent
On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some functions
would
Therefore we might argue that only programs that halt can contribute to our
polls. This unfortunately does not allow for a true 3p.
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so that would require that all programs would
be simultaneously
ISTM that this you are everyone aspect is the definition of that it is
like to be at the substitution level.
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35
Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz
invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect that the UD can
be considered to 'run' on chains of observer events per Knuth picture. This
gives us a nice toy model of how space-time is emergent.
On Fri, May 10, 2013
For more on Kevin Knuth's work please see http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.4172
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Knuth has shown how to derive space-time structure and lorentz
invariance from ordered lattices of observers. I suspect
Brent,
I gave a non-circular explication of that ... based on faith in some
supernatural revelation.
Right, that is not circular. Are you OK with infinite regress based
explanations?
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch
spudboy...@aol.com
11:10 AM (44 minutes ago)
How far down, or up, do the Monads go? Perhaps how for in or out. Do monads
stop at the Planck length, or the Beckenstein Bound?? Monads seem, somehow
more primal then an average particle. I could see neutrinos being real
monads, because they can alter
If I may. We do so because we cannot account for such undetectable 'things'
except perhaps as some randomness in the system that we can observe.
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
*Any* compositions of monads is a monad.
On Tuesday, May 7, 2013 7:15:27 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Monads within composite monads. How can you discuss Leibniz without
mention of composite monads
In addition, Indras Pearls were known before the time of Leibniz
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:09
Dear Bruno,
As a former and recovering fundamentalist Christian, I am 100% in agreement
with your words above. I merely wish that I could communicate better with
you.
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 29 Apr 2013, at 11:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 02 May 2013, at 23:54, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, we can hope the best, but we can fear the worst. Even the bitcoin has
made a little crack due to exaggerate speculation.
The exaggerate speculation phase was to be
Brent,
I think you may be reading my question in the wrong way. I didn't mean to
equate your consciousness with that of every if/else decision you make, but
rather ask something like, What does the shortest possible program that is
conscious look like?
I have trouble seeing why some short piece
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Stephen Paul King
kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote:
Brent,
I think you may be reading my question in the wrong way. I didn't mean
to equate your consciousness with that of every
think it's more feasible to try to reverse-engineer the
morphogenetic algorithms encoded in the DNA. We would still not
understand the creation, but would have a greater chance of success,
and we would understand how to create the conditions for our creation
to grow. Fully understanding a
401 - 500 of 937 matches
Mail list logo
