- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:50PM +0100, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
I use universe and history, or OM
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2008 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:45PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
No - by universe, I mean a classical
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:50PM +0100, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
I use universe and history, or OM-sequence almost synonymously. Since
it was I who made the comment, it is what I meant. I think your method
can only work if the sequence of OMs observed by an observer is
describable as
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:58 PM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
A final brief point in an attempt to help clarify matters. The failure
of
induction problem is about
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 02:31:45PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
No - by universe, I mean a classical branch of the multiverse. The
multiverse is, as you say, deterministic.
I think I should just try to clarify here - the minimum specification idea
as applied to a multiverse (what my
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 04:19:44PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
The minimal specification including all
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 09:51:34PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
As to your pessimism about AI, I don't share that. It is quite
feasible to add sources of quantum randomness to machines, and indeed
there is already quite a bit of literature on this subject, mostly for
cryptographic
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 04:19:44PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
The minimal specification including all OMs in a universe could not be
sufficient to specify the OMs completely. There must always be some random
component to the complete specification of an OM.
Bang goes AI! I can't
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
.
.
.
If one takes the description string x (up to
some finite limit) as (minimally) representing a universe
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
Comparing identical OM's/OM sequences, it seems to me that I am most
likely
to be ['in'] that sequence of OM
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
Comparing identical OM's/OM sequences, it seems to me that I am most
likely
to be ['in'] that sequence of OM occurrences that is in one of the
simplest universes that can
On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 01:40:58PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
Comparing identical OM's/OM
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 07:58:35PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:56 AM
Subject: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
.
.
.
(There appears to be a subsidiary
, March 12, 2008 2:56 AM
Subject: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
.
.
In your 'Why Occam's Razor' paper, sect 2, following a discussion of the
Schmidhuber ensemble and the Universal Prior, it is stated If we assume the
self-sampling asssumption [...t]his implies we should find ourselves
- Original Message -
From: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:56 AM
Subject: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
.
.
.
(There appears to be a subsidiary issue of 'many description
strings to one OM' (what you seem to be saying
I'm reposting this. I forgot that I have to have the everything-list
email address first, otherwise it bounces from GoogleGroups :(
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 08:56:24PM -, Alastair Malcolm wrote:
I think this issue should be pushed further a little, since there seems to
be a fundamental
16 matches
Mail list logo
