]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:46:17AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Again, that does not work because we can not take space-time (ala GR
King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:46:17AM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Again, that does not work because we can not take space-time (ala GR
[EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:22 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 10:33:37PM -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Russel,
The reference page is about the necessary resources for quantum
computation
...
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
Dear Russel,
Does this quantum
PM
Subject: [issues] Re: Is the universe computable?
Dear Russell,
Let me add that I do not think that it is sufficient to embed
space-time
in Hilbert space, we also need some way of explaining how space-time
phenomena acts on the Hilbert space's vectors. The infamous
back-action
own when we
consider finite comp systems.
Am I making any sense so far?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From:
Bruno Marchal
To: Stephen Paul King ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 6:48
AM
Subject:
Dear Stephen,
[SPK] No, Bruno, I
like Comp, I like it a LOT! I just wish that it had a support that was
stronger than the one that you propose ...
[BM] Where do I give a support to comp? I don't remember. No doubt
that I am fascinated by its consequences, and that I appreciate the so
deep
At 17:12 27/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Kory and Hal,
Kory's idea strongly reminds me of the basic idea explored by John
Cramer in his Interactional interpretation in that it takes into account
both past and future states. Please see:
At 11:57 27/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Thank you for this post. It gives me a
chance to reintroduce one problem that I have with your model. Like you,
I am very interested in comments from others, as it could very well be
that I am misunderstanding some subtle detail of your
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:27
AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe
computable
At 11:57 27/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Thank you for this post. It gives me a chance to
reintroduce one problem that I have with your model. Like you, I am very
interested
At 1/27/04, Hal Finney wrote:
One way to approach an answer to the question is to ask, is there such
a CA in which a universal computer can be constructed? That would be
evidence for at least a major prerequisite for conscious observations.
Do you have any examples like this?
In my opinion,
At 1/26/04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
The modern incarnation of this is the so-called
4D cube model of the universe. Again, these ideas only work for those who
are willing to completely ignore the facts of computational complexity and
the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
I think you and I are
Hi Kory, Hi Stephen, Hi All,
At 01:19 27/01/04 -0500, Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/26/04, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
The modern incarnation of this is
the so-called
4D cube model of the universe. Again, these ideas only work for those
who
are willing to completely ignore the facts of computational
Original Message -
From:
Bruno Marchal
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 10:46
AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe
computable
Hi Kory, Hi Stephen, Hi All,
I understand Kory very well and believe he argues correctly in this
post with respect to Stephen.B
, January 27, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
Kory Heath writes:
Forget about our own (potentially non-computable) universe for a second.
Surely you agree that we can imagine some large-but-finite 3+1D CA (it
doesn't have to be anything like our own universe) in which
Dear Kory,
Interleaving below.
- Original Message -
From: Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 1/24/04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I should respond to Kory's ME == PE idea. In PE
The problem is that there is a large class of physical systems that
are
not computable by TMs, i.e., they are intractable. Did you read the
Wolfram quote that I included in one of my posts? Please read the entire
article found here:
Another way of thinking of this is to concider the
- Original Message -
From: John Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Dear Jesse,
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: Is the universe computable?
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
Georges Quenot wrote:
Also I feel some confusion between the questions
Dear Bruno,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
Dear Stephen,
At 12:39 21/01/04
Dear Stephen,
At 12:39 21/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno and Kory,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 02:50 21/01/04
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is the universe computable
At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
Saying that the probability that a given integer is even is 0.5 seems
intuitively to me and can be made precise (see my last post).
We can say with precision that a certain sequence
At 1/19/04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Were and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
first cause question?
The view that Mathematical Existence == Physical Existence implies that
physical resources
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:33:57PM -0800, CMR wrote:
Yes! you've captured the gist and fleshed out the raw concept that hit me
whilst reading your post on weightless computation; that's potentially the
value of it as an avenue to explore, I think: that there is an
At 02:50 21/01/04 -0500, Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/19/04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Were and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
first cause question?
The view that Mathematical Existence == Physical
not
request acceptance. My 'narrative'.
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Where and when
Greetings Eugen
While it is not possible to infer physics of the metalayer, it is possible
to
infer the number of bits necessary to encode this universe.
I'm familiar with the concept of a metalayer in software dev as a
compatibility interface between apps etc.. So, in this case the
meta-layer
Dear Bruno and Kory,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 02:50 21/01/04 -0500, Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/19/04, Stephen Paul King wrote
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:34:50AM -0800, CMR wrote:
I'm familiar with the concept of a metalayer in software dev as a
compatibility interface between apps etc.. So, in this case the
meta-layer being I assume the interface between the universes abstractly
and between the simulation and the
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 12:23 PM
Subject: RE: Is the universe computable
Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/18/04, Hal Finney wrote:
Now consider all possible program tapes being run at the same time,
perhaps
Dear Bruno,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
Dear Stephen,
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Hal, and Friends
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Where and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
first cause question?
Anything physical is by definition within a universe (by my definition,
,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Where and when is the consideration of the physical resources
The fact that an Algorithm is independent of any particular
implementation is not reducible to the idea that Algorithms (or Numbers,
or
White Rabbits, etc.) can exist without some REAL resources being used in
their implementation (and maybe some kind of thermodynamics).
To paraphrase
Dear CMR,
- Original Message -
From: CMR [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
[SPK previous]
The fact that an Algorithm is independent of any particular
implementation is not reducible
Pete Carlton writes:
Imagine a Life universe that contains, among other things, two SASes
talking to each other (and showing each other pictures, and in general
having a very lucid, conscious, conversation.) Imagine that instead of
being implemented on a computer, it's implemented by a
Greetings Stephen,
BTW, have you ever read about the Maxwell Demon?
Being partial to the information physical view; not only have I read it, I
also account for it by viewing a system's information as physical.
So by inference should then I be viewing the mapping of the intra and extra
universal
Greetings Pete,
If not, then can you say what it is about the active process of
flipping or laying down that counts as computation but does not count
when the stack is a static block?
I suppose I'm ultimately in the hard info physics camp, in that the
pattern's the thing; given the 2ds and
CMR writes:
Then question then becomes, I suppose, if in fact our universe is a digital
one (if not strictly a CA) havng self-consistent emergent physics, then
might it not follow that it is implemented (run?) via some extra-universal
physical processes that only indirectly correspond to ours?
these two arguments together, what do we get?
See: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0304128 ;-)
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
CMR writes:
Then question
At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote:
However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to
be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random
program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that
you created the first program above is 1/2^100, and
Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote:
However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to
be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random
program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that
you created the first program above
Kory said...
At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
This allows us to say the probability that an integer is even is 0.5,
or
the probability that an integer is a perfect square is 0.
But can't you use this same logic to show that the cardinality of the
even
integers is half that of the
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Where and when is the consideration of the physical resources required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question
Think of it this way, what is the cardinality of the equivalence class
of representations R of, say, a 1972 Jaguar XKE, varying over *all
possible
languages* and *symbol systems*? I think it is at least equal to the
Reals.
Is this correct? If R has more than one member, how can we
And what does it say about the physical properties which are necessary
for computation? We have energy; Life has blinkiness (the degree to
which cells are blinking on and off within a structure); neither property
has a good analog in the other universe. Does the real universe win,
in terms
David Barrett-Lennard writes:
Why is it assumed that a multiple runs makes any difference to the
measure?
One reason I like this assumption is that it provides a natural reason
for simpler universes to have greater measure than more complex ones.
Imagine a Turing machine with an infinite
At 1/18/04, Hal Finney wrote:
Now consider all possible program tapes being run at the same time,
perhaps on an infinite ensemble of (virtual? abstract?) machines.
Of those, a fraction of 1 in 2^100 of those tapes will start with that
100 bit sequence for the program in question.
[snip]
Now
At 17:36 16/01/04 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 02:28:27PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
of brain and the like. I of course respect completely that opinion; but I
point on the fact
that once you make the computationnalist hypothesis then it is the reverse
which becomes
At 15:05 16/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Possibly making you not better than them. But this not that
simple. They do not disagree with dialog and argumentation.
Rather they argue in different ways and/or with different
premises.
OK, so I perhaps did not understand you fully. I thought they
I find it hard to believe that the measure of a
program/book/movie/experience is proportional to the number it is
executed/read/seen/lived, independently of everything else.
I have an alternative proposition:
Measure is a function of how accessible a particular
program/book/movie/experience
Eugen said...
I was using a specific natural number (a 512 bit integer) as an
example for
creation and destruction of a specific integer (an instance of a class of
integers). No more, no less.
That's plenty to bring out our difference of opinion. cf creation and
destruction of a specific
At 17:13 14/01/04 +, Giu1i0 Pri5c0 wrote:
Please correct me if I am wrong:
Bruno believes that information, for example mathematical concepts and
theorems, exist independently of their encoding in some physicsl systems
(arithmetic realism); in other words, that the number 4 esists
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:27:49AM +0800, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I agree with everything you say, but did you really think I was making a
point because Eugen happened to use hex?!
I've fallen behind on answering my email, so sorry if this is brief and a bit
out of context. This post is
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 10:14 13/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical property
independent of us because there is no thing on which they would
apply independentkly of us. What we would call their arithmetical
properties is simply a set of
- Original Message -
From: David Barrett-Lennard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xf2f75022aa10b5ef6c69f2f59f34b03e26cb5bdb467eec82780
didn't exist in this universe (with a very high probability, it being a
512 bit number, generated from physical system noise) before I've
generated it. Now it
Hi Eric,
0xf2f75022aa10b5ef6c69f2f59f34b03e26cb5bdb467eec82780
didn't exist in this universe (with a very high probability, it
being a
512 bit number, generated from physical system noise) before I've
generated it. Now it exists (currently, as a hex string (not
necessarily
ASCII) on
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:38:51AM +0800, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
You seem to be getting a little hot under the collar!
Nope, just a bit polemic. I was getting tired of glib assertions, and needed
to poke a stick, to find out what's underneath.
Here is a justification of why I think
I agree with you Ben, you make a point. My objection admits indeed
your wonderful generalization. Thanks.
Bruno
At 11:07 13/01/04 -0500, Benjamin Udell wrote:
[Georges Quenot]Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical
property independent of us because there is no thing on which they
Hi Georges,
I got that mail before. And I did answer it. Are you sure you send the
right mail?
see http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m5026.html
Bruno
At 10:14 13/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 13:36 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 12:22:13PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indeed I wasn't. In general I don't like to much argue on hypotheses.
I just say lots of stuff. I don't mean it. Please attach no significance to
what I say; it's just hot air.
Also, I don't like to repeat to much arguments, so,
Please correct me if I am wrong:
Bruno believes that information, for example mathematical concepts and theorems, exist
independently of their encoding in some physicsl systems (arithmetic realism); in
other words, that the number 4 esists independently of the presence in the physical
world of
Eugen Leitl wrote:
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
Here is a justification of why I think arithmetical realism is at least
very plausible...
I'm all ears.
Let's suppose that a computer simulation can (in principle) exhibit
awareness. I don't know whether you dispute this hypothesis, but let's
Hi John,
At 10:39 12/01/04 -0500, John M wrote:
Bruno,
in the line you touched with 'numbers:
I was arguing on another list 'pro' D.Bohm's there are no numbers in
nature
position ...
But what is nature ? I have never said that numbers exist in nature.
The word nature or the word universe are
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:24:07PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If I'd kill you, you'd have no chance of thinking that thought.
Actually this is pure wishful thinking, unless you mean succeeding
I was referring to a gedanken experiment, of course.
to kill me and my counterparts in some
At 14:08 13/01/04 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
you be able to do a thing like that. I will not insist on this
startling consequence of COMP or QM, giving that you
postulate physicalism at the start. See my thesis for a proof that
physicalism is incompatible with comp. We have discuss the
At 10:14 13/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical property
independent of us because there is no thing on which they would
apply independentkly of us. What we would call their arithmetical
properties is simply a set of tautologies that do come with
[Georges Quenot]Some people do argue that there is no arithmetical property
independent of us because there is no thing on which they would apply independentkly
of us. What we would call their arithmetical properties is simply a set of tautologies
that do come with them when they are considered
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:03:38PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What is the point? Do we have experimental procedure to validate
the opposite of the fanciful scenario? Giving that we were talking about
I see, we're at the prove that the Moon is not made from green cheese when
nobody is looking
Wei Dai wrote:
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:32:05PM +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Many other way of simulating the universe could be considered like
for instance a 4D mesh (if we simplify by considering only general
relativity; there is no reason for the approach not being possible in
an
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:30:10PM +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
No. They actually came to me while I was figuring some other
ways of simulating a universe than the sequential one that seemed
to give rise to many problems to me. The second one is influenced
What's your take on how subjective
Georges Quenot writes:
I do not believe in either case that a simulation with this level
of detail can be conducted on any computer that can be built in
our universe (I mean a computer able to simulate a universe
containing a smaller computer doing the calculation you considered
with a level
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 13:36 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems, but it isn't. Well, actually I have known *one* mathematician,
(a russian logician) who indeed makes a serious try to develop
some mathematics without that infinite act of faith (I
Hal Finney wrote:
Suppose we sought to construct a consistent history of such a CA system
by first starting with purely random values at each point in space and
time. Now, obviously this arrangement will not satisfy the CA rules.
But then we go through and start modifying things locally so as to
Jesse Mazer wrote:
Hal Finney wrote:
Suppose we sought to construct a consistent history of such a CA system
by first starting with purely random values at each point in space and
time. Now, obviously this arrangement will not satisfy the CA rules.
But then we go through and start modifying
Dear Wei, Georges, et al,
Where does the notion of computational resources factor in this?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Georges Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe
. (egg = number theory,
chicken = objects and observers). Both come together and can't be
pulled apart.
- David
-Original Message-
From: Eugen Leitl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 January 2004 1:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
At 15:42 09/01/04 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think the word universe is a basic term. It is a sort
or deity for atheist. All my work can be seen as an attempt to mak
it more palatable in the comp frame.
Tegmark, imo, goes in the right direction, but seems unaware
of
At 13:36 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems, but it isn't. Well, actually I have known *one* mathematician,
(a russian logician) who indeed makes a serious try to develop
some mathematics without that infinite act of faith (I don't recall
its name for the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:50:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What I mean is that their arithmetical property are independent
of us. Do you think those people believe that the proposition
17 is prime is meaningless without a human in the neighborhood?
Of course it is meaningless. Natural
At 16:02 12/01/04 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:50:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What I mean is that their arithmetical property are independent
of us. Do you think those people believe that the proposition
17 is prime is meaningless without a human in the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:18:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Natural numbers are not representation. They are the one represented,
for exemples by infosystems, or pebbles, animals etc.
They are the one represented is a yet another assertion. I would be more
inclined to listen, if you'd show
Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
At 13:36 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems, but it isn't. Well, actually I have known *one*
mathematician
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:32:05PM +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Many other way of simulating the universe could be considered like
for instance a 4D mesh (if we simplify by considering only general
relativity; there is no reason for the approach not being possible in
an even more general way)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
to your series of questions I would like to add one as first:
What do you call universe?
i think this question is most temporally cognitively
Norman Samish :
Max Tegmark, at http://207.70.190.98/toe.pdf, published in Annals of
Physics, 270, 1-51 (1998), postulates that all structures that exist
mathematically exist also physically.
Max Tegmark postulated or conjectured even more in that paper:
that the distinction between
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 11:34 08/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
I am very willing (maybe too much, that's part of the
problem) to accept a Platonic existence for *the* integers.
I am far from sure however that this does not involve a
significant amount of faith.
Indeed. It needs an
At 09:45 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 11:34 08/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
I am very willing (maybe too much, that's part of the
problem) to accept a Platonic existence for *the* integers.
I am far from sure however that this does not involve a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 09:45 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
At 11:34 08/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
I am very willing (maybe too much, that's part of the
problem) to accept a Platonic existence for *the* integers.
I am far from sure
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think the word universe is a basic term. It is a sort
or deity for atheist. All my work can be seen as an attempt to mak
it more palatable in the comp frame.
Tegmark, imo, goes in the right direction, but seems unaware
of the difficulties mathematicians discovered
John M wrote:
George Q wrote (among many others, full post see below):
A.the universe in which I live according to the current intuition
I have of it
and
B: the possibility to simulate the universe at any level of accuracy.
First I wanted to ask what is intuition, but let us stay with
time to read it and then pick this discussion back up.
;-)
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Jesse
At 11:34 08/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
I am very willing (maybe too much, that's part of the
problem) to accept a Platonic existence for *the* integers.
I am far from sure however that this does not involve a
significant amount of faith.
Indeed. It needs an infinite act of faith. But I
Possibly relevant to this thread:
NYTimes:
January 8, 2004
New-Found Old Galaxies Upsetting Astronomers' Long-Held Theories on the Big
Bang
By KENNETH CHANG
ATLANTA, Jan. 7 Gazing deep into space and far into the past, astronomers
have found that the early universe, a couple of billion years
Georges Quenot writes:
I would be interested in reading the opinions of the participants
about that point and about the sense that could be given to the
question of what happens (in the simulated universe) in any non-
synchronous simulation when the simulation diverges ?
I'll make two points.
You asked what I meant:
(- Original Message -
From: Georges Quenot To: John M
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 3:50 AM)
( John M wrote:
[earlier excerpts from GQ's post]:
A.the universe in which I live according to the current intuition
I have of it
and
B:
Georges Quenot wrote:
[...]
I would be interested in reading the opinions of the participants
about that point and about the sense that could be given to the
question of what happens (in the simulated universe) in any non-
synchronous simulation when the simulation diverges ?
Thanks for
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
Georges Quenot wrote:
[...]
I would be interested in reading the opinions of the participants
about that point and about the sense that could be given to the
question of what happens (in the simulated universe) in any non-
synchronous simulation
John M wrote:
Dear Georges,
to your series of questions I would like to add one as first:
What do you call universe?
I would naively answer: the universe in which I live
according to the current intuition I have of it. I am
not sure this makes sense and I also understand that
others may have
: Is the universe computable?
John M wrote:
Dear Georges,
to your series of questions I would like to add one as first:
What do you call universe?
I would naively answer: the universe in which I live
according to the current intuition I have of it. I am
not sure this makes sense and I also understand
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
