Hal Finney wrote:
How about Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures exist, and we're
living in one of them? Or does that require an elderly mathematician,
a piece of parchment, an ink quill, and some scribbled lines on paper in
order for us to be here?
It seems to me that mathematics e
-
From: "Eugen Leitl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Hal Finney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 01:03:03AM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
> How about Tegmark's idea that all mathematical structures exist, and we're
> living in one of them? Or does that require an elderly mathematician,
> a piece of parchment, an ink quill, and some scribbled lines on paper in
> order for u
Eric Hawthorne writes:
> So does that mean we just say "think of the substrate of the universe as
> being a turing machine equivalent",
> any old turing machine equivalent. Ok, but still, you have to admit that
> every "easy to think of" instantiation
> of a turing machine (e.g. a PC with a lot o
We're just doing models or thought experiments here when we postulate
that a universe is (could be)
a simulation in a computer running a cellular automaton, are we not?
Whatever explanation we do come up with eventually is going to have to
explain
1. the "memory" cells themselves, and
2. what a
Hi Stephen:
Observers:
Accepting as a starting point the earlier argument that our universe is an
interpretation of a collection of the automaton cells considered there then
going further: What can the collection look like in order to have an
interpretation compatible with our universe?
It is
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds
> Hi Stephen:
>
> What I am basically saying is that you can not define a thing without
>
Hi Stephen:
What I am basically saying is that you can not define a thing without
simultaneously defining another thing that consists of all that is "left
over" in the ensemble of building blocks. I suspect that usually the "left
over" thing is of little practical use.
However, this duality a
Dear Stephen,
snip
> [BM]
> Giving that I *assume* that arithmetical truth is independent
> of me, you and the whole physical reality (if that exists), "I" do have
> infinite resources in that Platonia. Remember that from the first person
> point of view it does not matter where and how, in Platon
CTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds
> Hi Stephen and Bruno:
>
> I only managed to jump into the list and read the last two posting on this
> subject so I hope this effort to contribute is of interest in
Hi Stephen and Bruno:
I only managed to jump into the list and read the last two posting on this
subject so I hope this effort to contribute is of interest in areas such as:
[Cut and pasted out of context:]
> >[SPK]
> > I agree with most of your premises and conclusions but I do not
> >unde
: Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds
snip
> [BM]
> Giving that I *assume* that arithmetical truth is independent
> of me, you and the whole physical reality (if that exists), "I" do have
> infinite resources in that Platonia. Remember that from t
At 00:35 10/04/04 -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> BM: I agree with this. There is no embedding of QM in a Boolean
representation,
> if by embedding we mean a injective function which preserves the value of
> the observable. But ...
[SPK]
Ok. Well please help me how does my argument not fol
13 matches
Mail list logo
