Unidentified subject!

2001-09-05 Thread Tony

Bayes

2001-09-05 Thread Jacques Mallah
From: Charles Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll have another go at explaining my position (maybe I'll spot a flaw in it if I keep examininig it long enough). OK. Nice to see you're honestly thinking about it. Bayesian reasoning assumes (as far as I can see) that I should treat my present

RE: My history or Peters??

2001-09-05 Thread Charles Goodwin
-Original Message- From: Fred Chen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] A codified description of how the all-universes model works would be nice. Will a program that executes all programs really suffice? It seems more like an analogy than an actual model. With a computational model of

RE: Conditional probability continuity of consciousness (was: Re: FIN Again)

2001-09-05 Thread Charles Goodwin
-Original Message- From: Jesse Mazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Well, I hope you'd agree that which observer-moment I am right now is not a matter of definition, but a matter of fact. My opinion is that the global measure on all observer-moments is not telling us something like

Re: My history or Peters??

2001-09-05 Thread Brent Meeker
Hello Marchal On 05-Sep-01, Marchal wrote: Even if we are more than a universal computing machine, it is easy to explain there is a sense in which we are *at least* universal computing machines (even the kind which can know that(°)), and that is enough for making the world possibly very

RE: My history or Peters??

2001-09-05 Thread Marchal
Charles wrote (sometimes ago): On the other hand we may eventually learn all there is to learn. That's also possible. There is no unifying complete theory of just number theory or Arithmetic, neither computer science. You can try to solve the riddle in diagonalisation 1. It is a shortcut for

Re: My history or Peters??

2001-09-05 Thread Russell Standish
Brent Meeker wrote: Hello Marchal On 05-Sep-01, Marchal wrote: Even if we are more than a universal computing machine, it is easy to explain there is a sense in which we are *at least* universal computing machines (even the kind which can know that(°)), and that is enough for

RE: My history or Peters??

2001-09-05 Thread Charles Goodwin
I was talking about the laws of physics. It's possible in principle for those to be known (I think). One can also know all there is to know while knowing that one's knowledge is incomplete! Obviously a complete description of reality is impossible (where would you store the information about

Re: My history or Peters??

2001-09-05 Thread Fred Chen
A codified description of how the all-universes model works would be nice. Will a program that executes all programs really suffice? It seems more like an analogy than an actual model. With a computational model of bacterial growth, for example, one can simulate this on a computer screen as

Conditional probability continuity of consciousness (was: Re: FIN Again)

2001-09-05 Thread Jesse Mazer
From: Jacques Mallah [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FIN Again (was: Re: James Higgo) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 17:51:46 -0400 From: Jesse Mazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't understand your objection. It seems to me that it is perfectly coherent to imagine a TOE which includes