The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) -Updated abstract summary
An abstract summary of my Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT) has now been published. The final summary comes in at over 6 500 words. I hope to publish a fuller paper with some actual mathematics in it at a later date. This summary is intended to be a statement of the *general* conceptual principles behind my theory of everything. My advice to every-one here: I'd read this *very* careful if I were you! Here's the link: http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1360 -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day"
The Mathematico-Cognition Reality Theory (MCRT)
The link for the abstract summary of my theory of everything was here: http://www.toequest.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1338 -- "Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder's eye on the last day"
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 04:32:15PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 15-janv.-06, ? 19:04, Benjamin Udell a ?crit : > > >The "dovetailer" keeps sounding like a powerful idea. I do remember > >that it has often been mentioned here, but somehow I failed to pick up > >a sense of what it was really about. > > > The Universal Dovetailer is a program which generates and executes all > programs. > Its existence is a non trivial consequence of Church thesis. Please > recall me to explain this in detail in one or two weeks. > The necessity to dovetail (that is to run successiveley on the initial > segement of the execution never waiting any programs stop is due to the > fact that the always defined programs cannot be generated mechanically > (this can be done in the case of all programs). > Actually I have already explain this on the list (in 2001) but the > escribe archive seems no more working again, and the new archive seems > not go enough backward in time. > The first published paper where I define it, is "Mechanism ans Personal > Identity" paper: > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/M&PI_15-MAI-91.pdf > Russell Standish attributes it (wrongly) to Schmidhuber in his book. My To be precise I do not attribute it to Schmidhuber, but I can see why you came to that conclusion. I will be revising this section to make this point clear in the final version of my book. The dovetailer algorithm is certainly well known, and not apparently attributable to anyone, and at the time when I wrote that part of ToN, I was unaware that the specific application of the dovetailer to computing all possible programs is your idea. My mistake actually is using the qualified name "universal dovetailer" to describe a dovetailer generating all possible strings (Schmidhuber's work), when the universal dovetailer actually runs the programs too. I do not use the qualified name in "Why Occam's razor". -- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 pgpEhD1zAmId6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Paper+Religion Issue
See below: > Religion means believing something in the absence of sufficient > evidence. > > Stathis Papaioannou -- and: > My belief is that in matters of faith, you can > choose to believe or not > believe based on your personal preferences. === Stathis wrote it right, except for the unidentifiable "sufficient evidence". A faithful person 'believes' that the 'evidence' he so calls is 'sufficient'. It is a 1st person decision. Undebatable. Popper did not find sufficient (scientific) evidence, only falsification. And then come emotions into play... John Mikes http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/SciRelMay00.html
Re: Paper+Exercises+Naming Issue
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Danny Mayes writes: I haven't participated in the list in a while, but I try to keep up with the discussion here and there as time permits. I personally was raised a fundamentalist Baptist, but lost most of my interest in that religion when I was taught at 9 years old that all the little kids in Africa that are never told about Jesus Christ go to Hell. Even at 9, I knew that wasn't something I was going to be buying. Who wants to believe in a God that cruel? Even without the problematic cruel creator, I have always been to oriented toward logic and proof to just accept stuff on faith. I sympathise with the conclusions of the young Danny, but there is a philosophical non sequitur here. The fact that I would like something to be true, or not to be true, has no bearing on whether it is in fact true. I don't like what happened in Germany under the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I should believe the Nazis did not exist, so why should my revulsion at the thought of infidels burning in Hell lead me to believe that God and Hell do not exist? It might make me reluctant to worship such a God, but that is not the same as believing he does not exist. Religion means believing something in the absence of sufficient evidence. Stathis Papaioannou _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ My belief is that in matters of faith, you can choose to believe or not believe based on whether it suits your personal preferences. Your example of the Nazis would not apply because there is overwhelming evidence that the Nazis existed. Perhaps it can be argued that there is meaningful evidence that the God described in Sunday school class exists as well, however I don't think anyone would argue that the evidence for that God is nearly as strong as evidence of the Nazis. As you say, religion, by necessity, is based on faith and therefore little to no objective evidence. I guess your point was that if you already have the faith in something without evidence, the fact that you are then taught as part of the belief system that there are some aspects not very appealing should not have any bearing on whether you still have your faith? I would disagree with that in that you can have faith in something because the concept is attractive to you, but then lose your faith when the concept is shown to be less attractive. (this was not really my situation as a child- I was never really presented the opportunity to examine the faith until presented with the teachings described in the original post). This is not entirely unrelated to the sciences. Science has pushed into many areas into realms that can only tangentially, at best, be proven with objective evidence. The MWI is a good example. I believe in it, because I think it provides the most explanatory power over competing ideas. However, it would be difficult to fault someone for demanding more in the way of direct evidence. In a sense, there is an element of faith in such theories. String theory is another example. I'm not saying these things are not science, just that they are theories beyond our reach to prove or disprove at the present time. Many scientists are quoted as endorsing string theory in part due to the elegance of the theory. This goes with what I was saying above about accepting something on faith as long as it appears to be the most attractive idea, even if it is not supported by much objective evidence. I doubt the beliefs of fundementalist Christianity will ever be absolutely proven or disproven, and as a faith belief I reserve the right to discard it at my choosing! Danny