On 11 Mar 2011, at 03:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
Dear Stephen,
On 10 Mar 2011, at 16:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruno
Hi Bruno,
I deeply appreciate your corrections to my misunderstandings in your
response. I learned many things so far from you. I will re-read sane04.
Onward!
Stephen
From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 3:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot
Rummaging through the archives, I realized that a highly relevant article by
Marcus Hutter
apparently has not yet been discussed on this list, although many have
downloaded it:
A Complete Theory of Everything (Will Be Subjective)
Algorithms 2010, 3(4), 329-350; doi:10.3390/a3040329
Part of
On 10 Mar 2011, at 16:15, Stephen Paul King wrote:
From: Andrew Soltau
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:47 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
On 09/03/11 16:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that
there
On 10/03/11 14:10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2011, at 13:47, Andrew Soltau wrote:
All the moments exist, and as Deutsch points out, as you summarise,
'The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that there
are different frames that have an implicit sequence and in which
On Mar 10, 8:57 pm, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
To Evgeniy's train of thought I would attach another question (what you,
savants of Q-science may answer easily): if the universe expands (does it,
indeed?) do the interstitial spaces in an atom expand similarly, or they are
exempt and
On 11 Mar 2011, at 13:07, Andrew Soltau wrote:
On 10/03/11 14:10, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2011, at 13:47, Andrew Soltau wrote:
All the moments exist, and as Deutsch points out, as you
summarise, 'The appearance of change is already explained by the
fact that there are different
Dear Andrew and Bruno,
Please forgive my intrusion here but I both share a concern with Andrew
about a concept being discussed and have a series of comments.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Soltau
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 7:07 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject:
On 3/9/2011 9:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2011, at 20:11, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/8/2011 10:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We could start with lambda terms, or combinators instead. A
computation (of phi_4(5) is just a sequence
phi_4^0 (5) phi_4^1 (5) phi_4^2 (5) phi_4^3 (5)
John,
I am probably not that far from agnosticism but the question is how to
make it useful for practitioners like me who have to earn money. I mean
that it is still necessary to take decisions and then the question would
be how.
Although this could be just illusion somehow made by numbers
On 11/03/11 16:54, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Andrew and Bruno,
Please forgive my intrusion here but I both share a concern with
Andrew about a concept being discussed and have a series of comments.
Dear Stephen
I am delighted you have interjected. I find your thoughts most helpful
On 11/03/11 09:39, Digital Physics wrote:
Rummaging through the archives, I realized that a highly relevant
article by Marcus Hutter
apparently has not yet been discussed on this list, although many have
downloaded it:
Highly relevant indeed. He states in his summary I have demonstrated
that a
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see that all of this detail
leads to is that at its core, Existence is Change itself. Becoming is the
fundamental ontological primitive., just as Bergson argued. This is the result
that Hitoshi discovered and discussed in his
fixing my typos
From: Stephen Paul King
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 10:24 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Implementing Machines
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see in all of this detail leads
to is, that at its core essence, Existence is Change itself. Becoming
On 3/11/2011 7:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see that all of this
detail leads to is that at its core, Existence is Change itself.
Becoming is the fundamental ontological primitive., just as Bergson
argued. This is the result that
Thanks, this is fascinating.
On 12/03/11 03:34, Stephen Paul King wrote:
fixing my typos
*From:* Stephen Paul King mailto:stephe...@charter.net
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2011 10:24 PM
*To:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Subject:* Re: Implementing Machines
Hi Andrew,
On 12/03/11 03:43, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 3/11/2011 7:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see that all of this
detail leads to is that at its core, Existence is Change itself.
Becoming is the fundamental ontological primitive., just as
17 matches
Mail list logo
