Re: A question for Bruno

That's a good example, actually! On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > Can you give an example? What I'm led to think of is something like: > % Add two and two > print "4" > halt > > Brent > > > > On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: >

Re: A question for Bruno

Can you give an example? What I'm led to think of is something like: % Add two and two print "4" halt Brent On 9/15/2016 6:27 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing: process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking

Re: A question for Bruno

The idea is to think of computations as discrete, they do one thing: process one algorithm and halt. Obviously I am not talking about Turing machines... On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > > > On

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 4:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote: On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote: On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete

Re: A question for Bruno

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, > I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories > > > I

Re: A question for Bruno

What I meant was that the subjective experience of time would be the same whether there was a material universe with real time, a material block universe without time, or no material universe. On 16 September 2016 at 02:16, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM,

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 11:03 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories I don't understand what you mean by that. I assume "theories" refers to axiomatic systems.

Re: A question for Bruno

I get that and buy it too, Brent. Platonia is the "flat" Complete version, I am looking for the infinite tower of incomplete yet consistent theories and trying to make sense of computational languages that could use those theories. Remember that computers do not need to be Turing Complete if they

Re: A question for Bruno

According to Bruno it's in Platonia. It's timeless and doesn't "go", it just IS, like 2+2 IS 4. Brent On 9/15/2016 10:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016

Re: A question for Bruno

I think that time (and physicality) within 1p is sufficient, if there have a large enough plurality of interacting finite minds. What I have trouble with DM is that it is not obvious where we get that plurality. I still suspect that a weak version of Tennenbaum's theorem could solve this problem,

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 Sep 2016, at 13:44, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Stathis, I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are

Re: A question for Bruno

OK, but where is the "motivation" that pushes the execution of the UD coming from? Where is the "go!" in the numbers? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an > implicit order (the

Re: A question for Bruno

In this case we have a lot of threads and along each thread there is an implicit order (the execution of the UD), but there is no inherent relative order of the threads. Brent On 9/15/2016 9:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with

Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually

On 15 Sep 2016, at 09:52, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes

Re: A question for Bruno

Could it be that the concrete is the subjective reflection of the abstract? On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:16 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King < > stephe...@provensecure.com>

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 4:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King > wrote: Hi Stathis, I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we need a lot more detail,

Re: A question for Bruno

There is "time is a measure of change" concept, which lines up with what you're saying: "... 'time' is only a real number..." The numbers are labels, not the change itself. On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal

Re: A question for Bruno

On 9/15/2016 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is

Re: Aaronson/Penrose

On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 4:46:16 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 2:14:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Sep 2016, at 20:48, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sunday, September 11, 2016 at 12:02:03 PM UTC-6, Bruno

Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually

Yes. Meditation to me feels like an attempt to gain control over biology. Or perhaps just to make biology shut up for a second. I think that its more an attempt to calm the nervous system, by focused relaxation. Its the amygdala's way of quieting the fight-flight process of the amygdala, and

Re: A question for Bruno

On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi Stathis, > >I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we > need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the > timing, order or duration of a and b are

Re: Non-Evolutionary Superintelligences Do Nothing, Eventually

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2016, at 11:47, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:00 AM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 Telmo Menezes wrote: >>> > We

Re: A question for Bruno

On 14 Sep 2016, at 02:13, Brent Meeker wrote: On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker wrote: In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is emergent. The "execution" of the program is timeless and