On 12/29/2013 11:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
On 29 Dec 2013, at 22:51, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 23:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013
On 30 Dec 2013, at 05:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 12/29/2013
On 30 Dec 2013, at 06:28, Jason Resch wrote:
In the space of all possible movies, the ones that are watchable or
meaningful to human viewers would all be highly compressible. The
ones that are random snow, despite containing more information,
would not make interesting movies. So maybe
On 30 Dec 2013, at 09:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 11:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got
On 28 Dec 2013, at 16:51, Jason Resch wrote:
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 25 Dec
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any
On 28 Dec 2013, at 17:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:10, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically
On 28 Dec 2013, at 18:43, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:12, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on
sequence of states, with the right probabilities, and for this you
need the complete run of the UD, because your next moment is
determioned by
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:19, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure
of all things.
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want
generate only that numbers. but a simple counting algorithm
generating all
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random
number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Dear Brent and Jason,
I think that this is an important idea: the relationship between
compression algorithms and numbers. It does not look like a simple
one-to-one and onto map!
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Brent and Jason,
I think that this is an important idea: the relationship between
compression algorithms and numbers. It does not look like a simple
one-to-one and onto map!
Stephen,
For any
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 1:28 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM, meekerdb
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 2:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:51 PM, meekerdb
On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 11:54 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 7:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 6:58 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/29/2013 3:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM, meekerdb
On 29 Dec 2013, at 20:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/29/2013 5:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 22:23, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not presuming, structure, or a-priori, existence of
something, doing this processing, this
On 27 Dec 2013, at 23:50, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body
problem strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of
other minds.
Actually, I have wondered
On 28 Dec 2013, at 00:20, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one
might make an argument
On 28 Dec 2013, at 01:56, Jason Resch wrote:
Somewhat. I think how frequently a program is referenced /
instantiated by other non-halting programs may play a role.
Yes. It has to be like that. Stopping programs should contribute to 0,
in the measure conflict.
So we are
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:03, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You state The UD is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind.
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement
I've heard here today in all manner of
On 28 Dec 2013, at 02:04, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the
program that is identical to your mind.
To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences
etc are
On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:29, LizR wrote:
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as
UD* - I made the same mistake!)
Good :)
will eventually contain your mind.
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence
of states, with the right
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure
of all things.
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the Integers, all else is the invention of man.
man is a measure of all things is a quote
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:41, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason
(apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first
instruction of the first programme, then the first
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:44, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and
10^100^100th state of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ...
Umm, how? Godel and Matiyasevich would disagree!
No logicians at all would ever disagree on this. They
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:52, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has
not halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to a statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus
mathematical truth
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:01, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How do we distinguish a program from a string of random numbers.
(Consider OTP encryptions).
In which language?
A program fortran will be distinguished by the grammar of Fortran.
In some language all numbers will be program.
Then , for
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...
Also know today as object oriented languages. c++ win against
smaltalk, which won against the Actor model, but the idea is the same,
basically. It is efficacious, but the math
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:06, LizR wrote:
Clearly programmes don't have to be deterministic. They could
contain a source of genuine randomness, in principle.
I don't think the UD does, however.
The UD emulates all quantum computer and many sort of non
deterministic processes, including all
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations.
Turing machines require exact pre-specifiability. Adding noise
oracles is cheating!
But it
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not
compute it in real time which is what reality actually does which is
my point.
In real time ?! In comp (and
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:27, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of
determinism is random noise is necessary for the computations.
Turing machines require
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:31, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Jason,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
It is not a question of whether or not that
On Dec 28, 2013, at 6:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
translated to
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 Dec 2013, at 17:51, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 25 Dec 2013, at 18:40, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Are we not
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:32, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 18:03, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Hi Jason,
I would like to know the definition of reality that you are
using here.
I quite like whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.
I quite like
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:56, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:42 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
An observer can only experience a reality that is not
contradictory to its existence.
Tell this to the dictators.
Usually a reality guarantied some local consistency by definition of a
reality (modeled by the notion of models in logic).
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:03, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I ask this because I am studying Carl Hewitt's Actor Model...
Also know today as object oriented languages. c++ win against smaltalk,
which won against
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi LizR and Jason,
Responding to both of you. I don't understand the claim of determinism
is random noise is necessary for the computations. Turing
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:26, meekerdb wrote:
He proposes to dispense with any physical computation and have the
UD exist via arithmetical realism as an abstract, immaterial
computation.
What does a physicist? It looks outside, and seem to be believe in a
special unique universal number,
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:30, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/27/2013 8:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Edgar,
But here is the thing. If we assume timelessness, Bruno is
CORRECT! THe question then becomes: What is time?
It's a computed partial ordering relation between events.
The 1p time looks
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute
it in real time
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes to
dispense with any physical computation and have the UD exist via
arithmetical
Dear Bruno,
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 07:34, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 19:31, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Computed how? By what?
I know the answer to this one! To quote Brent -- He proposes
On 12/28/2013 3:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Perhaps; but only for nano second. you real mind overlap on sequence of states, with the
right probabilities, and for this you need the complete run of the UD, because your next
moment is determioned by the FPI on all computations.
That's a point
On 12/28/2013 3:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 04:36, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I loath Kronecker's claim! It is synonymous to Man is the measure of all
things.
What is his claim? I am not familiar with it.
God created the Integers, all else is the invention
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate computationally a random
number, and that is right, if we want generate only that numbers. but a simple counting
algorithm generating all numbers, 0, 1, 2, 6999500235148668, ...
On 12/28/2013 4:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 05:27, LizR wrote:
On 28 December 2013 17:23, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net mailto:edgaro...@att.net
wrote:
Jason,
You might be able to theoretically simulate it but certainly not compute it
in real
time which is
On 29 December 2013 00:26, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2013, at 03:53, Jason Resch wrote:
Would any universal number do?
That is what Bruno speculatively has suggested. I am not so sure.
Sometimes I think an if-then-else-statement contains all that is
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a random number, and that is right, if we want generate
only that numbers. but a simple counting
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot generate
computationally a
random
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
For a long time I got opponent saying that we cannot
On 12/28/2013 4:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12/28/2013 3:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:23 PM, meekerdb
. The conversation with the Lôbian machine is
just the beginning of the solution, in the most ideal case.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
.
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 25, 2013 6:18 am
Subject: Re: Bruno's mathematical reality
On 22 Dec 2013, at 20:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Your theory comes from Von
On 28 December 2013 05:51, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
It has always seemed to me that UDA cannot solve the mind-body problem
strictly because it cannot comprehend the existence of other minds.
Actually, I have wondered about this. How do all these threads of
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might make
an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme could
show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some computer,
would generate a description of the interaction of several
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might
make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme
could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if
Dear LizR,
Multi-solipsism, exactly! We each live in our very own world and all
interactions between pairs of separable entities are supported at lower
levels where the pair collapse to a single entity. This would be very
similar to Bruno's substitution level.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might
make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering
Dear Jason,
Interleaving below.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not
On 28 December 2013 12:20, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi LizR,
That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Jason,
Interleaving below.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2013 11:55,
Jason,
You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains
the program that is identical to your mind.
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've
heard here today in all manner of respects!
Edgar
On Friday, December 27, 2013 7:56:44 PM
On 28 December 2013 13:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably contains the
program that is identical to your mind.
To be more precise (I hope) - assuming that thoughts, experiences etc are a
form of computation at some level, the
On 28 December 2013 14:03, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind.
You can't be serious! As stated that's the most ridiculous statement I've
heard here today in all
Hi Jason,
I snipped the portion of the thread out to cut of the tail... Interleaving
in Blue.
I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is that
most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and
short-lived computational Boltzmann brains but much
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
Jason,
You state The UDA is a comparatively short program, and provably
contains the program that is identical to your mind.
My apologies, I meant the UD which short for Universal Dovetailer, not
the UDA, which is the
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as UD* - I
made the same mistake!) will *eventually* contain your mind. See my
previous post for an elaboration.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
What I think Jason is saying is that the TRACE of the UD (knowns as
On 28 December 2013 15:31, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
This is something that I also find it rather hard
I think friending is something to do with facebook, or similar social
media, so I think SPK is saying that programmes which reference other
programmes give them more reality. (Or something like that! :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Hi Jason,
Could you discuss the trace of the UD that LizR mentioned? How is it
computed? Could you write an explicit example? I have never been able to
grok it.
Bruno has written an actual UD in the
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if
I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on.
Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible programme, it
PS I like the while (true) statement. What would Pontius Pilate have made
of that? :-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Dear Jason,
ISTM that the line For each program we have generated that has not
halted, execute one instruction of it for each (Program p in
listOfPrograms) is buggy.
It assumes that the space of programs that do not halt is accessible. How?
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Jason Resch
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies if
I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
programme, then the first instruction of the second programme, and so on.
Once it
Hi Jason,
Any program, and whether or not it ever terminates can be translated to a
statement concerning numbers in arithmetic. Thus mathematical truth
captures the facts concerning whether or not any program executes forever,
and what all of its intermediate states are.
this also captures
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason (apologies
if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction of the first
Hi Jason,
The first, second, 10th, 1,000,000th, and 10^100th, and 10^100^100th state
of the UD's execution are mathematical facts ... Umm, how? Godel and
Matiyasevich would disagree! If there does not exist a program that can
evaluate whether or not a UD substring is a faithful representation of
Yeah, sorry, I re-read your post and realised I'd misunderstood, so I
deleted my post (thinking you hadn't replied...I forgot the time delay and
the fact we're in different reference frames :)
On 28 December 2013 16:41, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20
1 - 100 of 211 matches
Mail list logo
