revolutionary view of
the interdependence of physics and neurology/psychology is needed to
find new physics.
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
different windows to the same theory.
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send
leads to a theory of
morality. The RSSA does not seem to provide such a result. Though, I'd
like to have similar concepts out of the RSSA (according to Stathis, I
belong to the RSSA camp).
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
On 26 Sep., 14:39, Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ASSA implies that just before you answer, you should think that you have
0.91 probability of being in the universe with 0 up. Does that mean you
should guess yes? Well, I wouldn't. If I was in that situation, I'd think
If I answer 'no' my
Jason, let me split your ideas into two problems.
The first problem is to understand why and how observers interpret
data in a meaningful way despite of the fact that the data has no
unique meaning within itself.
On 26 Sep., 21:09, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A given piece of data can
that my message would make you blab out your
important ideas :)
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe
approaches) as given. It's not the output
of some UTM.
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from
experience will be, I can only consider observer moments identifying
themselves as myself, Youness Ayaita. Otherwise they should
postulate that I is not linked to the process of self-
identification, but that it is an absolute entity jumping from one
observer moment to another.
The everything list wiki has
On 18 Sep., 16:23, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So without putting any
extra-stcruture on the set of infinite strings, you could as well have
taken as basic in your ontology the set of subset of N, written P(N).
Now, such a set is not even nameable in any first order theory. In a
with
contradictions. This is why the set of properties is somehow
restricted. We need, as I wrote, a set of distinct and independent
properties. I don't really know if such a postulate makes sense.
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
of self-identification (e.g. to be Youness
Ayaita) that is part of the current observer moment. If we consider
the evolution of the observer from a third person perspective (within
our world and its usual dynamics), then we will see how the observer
changes with time. Though, as far as his capacity
., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Youness Ayaita wrote:
This leads to the
2nd idea:
We don't say that imaginable things are fundamental, but that the
properties themselves are. This idea was also expressed by 1Z in his
last reply (We define imaginable things through hypothetical
When I worked on my theory of the Everything ensemble, I have always
been convinced that it would require serious efforts to explain the
ideas to others. Today, I know that I was wrong: it requires only a
small sequence of numbers... Page numbers that can easily be looked up
in Russell's book
a pencil. Similarly, we imagine the Schmidhuber ensemble.
Descriptions are built up of elementary and independent properties
(corresponding to the pixels on your monitor).
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the
Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Youness Ayaita wrote:
...
I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is
somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of
course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned
I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was
erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that
do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be
possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.
So, I restrict my arguments
The two concerns, how to give a precise notion of the Everything, and
how to deduce predictions from a chosen notion, lie at the very heart
of our common efforts. Though, I did not go into them for the simple
reason that I wanted to avoid discussions that are not directly linked
to the topic.
of the White
Rabbit paradox.
Youness Ayaita
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
Youness Ayaita
In this message, I present my no-justification of the hypothesis
that everything exists. The no-justification argues that no
justification at all is needed to accept the hypothesis. This provides
a new and very satisfying
Thanks for your answers to my joining post! Dear Russell, your book
Theory of Nothing has overwhelmed me, it's a fantastic work. Several
months ago, I slowly began writing a book on the theory that
everything exists (in German) -- but I will not go on because your
book seems to be so great and
Hello everyone.
My name's Youness Ayaita and currently I'm a graduate student of
physics and mathematics at Heidelberg University, with special
interests in the field of theoretical quantum physics and in the
question how it comes to our specific laws of nature.
In the beginning of the year
22 matches
Mail list logo
