Russell Standish wrote:
Marchal wrote:
Hi Juergen,
I would like to nuance my last Post I send to you.
First I see in other posts, written by you, that your
computable real numbers are *limit* computable. It still
seems to me possible to diagonalize against that,
although it is
In his IMO excellent message Algorithmic TOEs vs Nonalgorithmic
TOEs, Schmidhuber states that things one cannot describe, do not
exist.
If I interpret correctly, Schmidhuber was aiming, in this context, at
_entire_ universes one cannot describe.
I agree with this, but propose to extend this
Wei Dai wrote:
The paradox is what happens if we run Alice and Bob's minds on different
substrates, so that Bob's mind has a much higher measure than Alice's.
I fail to understand the paradox. In the case where they are on the same
substrate, they are more likely to push button 2. OK
In the
I don't see a paradox here. In the latter situations, the volunteers
are acting in accordance with different information, ie that of their
measures. If they were not aware of their measures, they would have to
assume a 50/50 chance of being A or B, hence would choose button 1.
The best you can achieve is an algorithm that outputs at least the
computable infinite reals in the sense that it outputs their
finite descriptions or programs.
I am not sure I understand you here.
Are you aware that the set of descriptions of computable reals
is not closed for the
5 matches
Mail list logo
