Joel:
Bruno:
Your frank aknowledgment of the necessary 1-ignorance in self-
multiplication is quite moving, Joel, but don't you see where we
are leading to?
Let me guess... Is it Moscow?
No - wait. Is it Washington?
;)
:-)
Honestly, I'm trying not to think too hard about the whole
Jacques:
You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem
simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest.
Why not?
The set of all is the simplest possibility, rather than choosing
one simple program. (Joel's 3 dimensional cellular automata
are
Bruno:
I should have been more clear. I put at the (3-) bottom
arithmetical truth. It just means I believe sentence like
2+2=4, Fermat theorem, ...
Yes, I think we agree on this point. I gave the example of the
minimal cellular automaton as another third-person verifiable
structure. We
Bruno:
Your frank aknowledgment of the necessary 1-ignorance in self-
multiplication is quite moving, Joel, but don't you see where we
are leading to?
Let me guess... Is it Moscow?
No - wait. Is it Washington?
;) Honestly, I'm trying not to think too hard about the whole
argument yet.
Joel Dobrzelewski wrote:
Jacques:
You guys are going about it all wrong. Sure, some computers seem
simpler than others. But there's no one way to pick the simplest.
I agree with Jacques that trying to define a computer is ridiculous. But
if we must choose one, there is a way to pick
Bruno:
Do you realise now that not only we have a form of 1-indeterminacy
but we have also a sort of 1-nonlocality.
Yes, from the first-person point of view. Though I would try to
argue that the third-person point of view must always remain local.
Note: If you find that remark
6 matches
Mail list logo
