Stathis wrote
I got here this way: to be consistent,
I must use all my knowledge
to arrive at a class of events and
processes that I approve of, and
classes that I disapprove of. I
decided that it was bad for me to
suffer. Then since by physics, I
seem to be any sufficiently
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Brent Meeker
Cc: EverythingList list
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 06-juin-05, à 01:40, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What do you take to be the
It's perfectly clear to me which of the two is more important: prediction
or explanation?
Now that I have been self-liberated from fear of circularity,
it's clear that: each is more important than the other!
Lee
P.S. Someone pointed out to me off-list that I was far from the
first to have had
Le 06-juin-05, à 22:51, Hal Finney a écrit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the Why Occam discussion so far. I really don't understand
what it means to explain appearances rather than reality.
Well this I understand. I would even argue that
Le 07-juin-05, à 00:31, Brent Meeker a écrit :
BM:
For knowability I take the S4 axioms and rules:
1) axioms:
all classical tautologies>
BX -> X
BX -> BBX
B(X->Y) -> (BX -> BY)
2) Rule:
X X -> Y X
--- - (Modus ponens, necessitation)
YBX
But in
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the Why Occam discussion so far. I really don't understand
what it means to explain appearances rather
Le 07-juin-05, à 09:20, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the Why Occam discussion so far. I really don't understand
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
?
In LaTeX, this equation is
\frac {d\psi}{d t}={\cal H}(\psi)
It supposes time, but not space (TIME postulate).
Lee Corbin wrote:
[quoting Stathis]
I got here this way: to be consistent,
I must use all my knowledge
to arrive at a class of events and
processes that I approve of, and
classes that I disapprove of. I
decided that it was bad for me to
suffer. Then since by physics, I
seem to
Le 05-juin-05, à 19:45, Lee Corbin a écrit :
Bruno provides the exercise
I notice that many people seek refuge in the no-copying theorem of
QM.
Exercise: 1) Show by a qualitative informal reasoning that if we are
Turing emulable then a no-cloning theorem is a necessity.
My best guess
Le 07-juin-05, à 08:27, Lee Corbin a écrit :
It's perfectly clear to me which of the two is more important:
prediction
or explanation?
Now that I have been self-liberated from fear of circularity,
it's clear that: each is more important than the other!
Here I think you contradict yourself
Le 07-juin-05, à 12:28, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
?
In LaTeX, this equation is
\frac {d\psi}{d t}={\cal H}(\psi)
It
rmiller wrote:
At 03:58 PM 6/6/2005, you wrote:
rmiller wrote:
At 03:01 PM 6/6/2005, Pete Carlton wrote:
(snip)
The point is, there are enough stories published in any year that it
would be a trivial matter to find a few superficial resemblances between
any event and a story that came
All,
My tedious complaint about scientists prejudging issues prior to analysis
(the facts don't warrant. . .etc) extends beyond the superficially weird
(Heinlein's story) to the comparatively normal. While I'm not suggesting
anyone who does this routinely is anything other than merely
At 02:45 PM 6/7/2005, Jesse Mazer wrote:
(snip)
Of course in this example Feynman did not anticipate in advance what
licence plate he'd see, but the kind of hindsight bias you are engaging
in can be shown with another example. Suppose you pick 100 random words
out of a dictionary, and then
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
Hal dealt with this one already, I notice. 2^\aleph_0 = c. \aleph_1 is
something else entirely.
d'oh!
snip
Now an observer will expect to find a SAS in one of the descriptions
as a corrolory of the anthropic principle, which is explicitly
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 07-juin-05, ? 12:28, Russell Standish a ?crit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
?
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:15:03PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
Now an observer will expect to find a SAS in one of the descriptions
as a corrolory of the anthropic principle, which is explicitly stated
as one of the assumptions in this work. I make no bones about this - I
consider the
test
Lee:
Not quite! It turns out that everyone who knows them regards
identical
twins as different persons. And so regards them, I am pretty
certain as
different people in a way that they were *NOT* so regard you and your
duplicate. You and your duplicate---created yesterday,
say---would be
Hal Finney wrote:
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what
is an OM.
We need a formal model and description of a particular OM.
Consider, for example, someone's brain when he is having a
particular experience. He is eating chocolate ice cream while
listening to
21 matches
Mail list logo
