Thanks to Wei Dai for the two papers (I have not found the paper of
Albert-Loewer yet, but I am working on it).
For those familiar with Lockwood's version of the MMI, after reading
the paper I think it (or at least the general flavor) makes a lot of
sense. Any thoughts?
On 19 Jan 2004, at 15:17
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:49:09PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> But measures aren't just about making decisions about what to *do*, the main
> argument for a single objective measure is that such a measure could make
> predictions about what we *see*, like why we see regular laws of physics and
>
From: Wei Dai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Subjective measure? How does that work?
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 03:09:08 -0500
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:49:09PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> But measures aren't just about making decisions about
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:31:50PM -0800, Eric Hawthorne wrote:
>I took some small smattering of that stuff in comp sci undergrad, but
Algorithmic information theory is generally not taught in undergrad
courses. At least I didn't see it during my CS undergrad years.
(Which is too bad because
unsubscibe
Let me give a clearer example. Suppose I say that I believe it is a good and
noble thing for the strong to oppress the weak, even to the point of killing
them; and that if I were in charge I would promote this moral position in
schools, through the media, and with changes to the criminal law, so
Dear John,
If we grant your point that:
> So while the natural numbers and the integers have a rich internal
structure
> (rich enough to contain the whole universe and more, according to most
> subscribers on this list, I suspect), the reals can be encoded in the
single
> 'program' of tossing
Wei Dai writes:
> Now suppose that two people, Alice and Bob, somehow agree that a measure M
> is the objectively correct measure, but Bob insists on using measure M' in
> making decisions. He says "So what if universe A has a bigger measure than
> universe B according to M? I just care more about
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
One might ask Bob, what is the measure of Universes in which a Bob finds M but heeds
M' without being suicidal or at least hazardous to his own health? At any rate, Bob
could hardly have reached in sound mind & body the cognitive height of many-worlds
ideas without heeding M instead of M'. "Why
Wei Dai wrote:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:49:09PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
But measures aren't just about making decisions about what to *do*, the main
argument for a single objective measure is that such a measure could make
predictions about what we *see*, like why we see re
Stathis is right. The moral axiomatic system will have to show that in moral/ethical
issues we must allow ourselves to be guided by facts & logic. **But even if it
succeeds in showing that, one already has to have agreed to be guided by facts & logic
in order to be guided by the moral axiomatic
unsubscribe
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 09:51:47AM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
> But we can solve this conundrum while retaining symmetry. Rationality
> should demand allegience to the observed measure. It is irrational to
> cling to a measure which has been rejected repeatedly by observations.
> If classical defi
On 25-Jan-04, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Let me give a clearer example. Suppose I say that I believe it is a
> good and noble thing for the strong to oppress the weak, even to the
> point of killing them; and that if I were in charge I would promote
> this moral position in schools, through the
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> Do you think that by choosing a
> different measure, you could change the actual first-person probabilities of
> different experiences? Or do you reject the idea of continuity of
> consciousness and "first-person probabilities" in th
> Again, I really suggest that you read the book. It's very good and will
> explain all this for you. If you don't have ready access to the book,
> there are some online introductions to algorithmic information theory that
> you could try (see http://www.idsia.ch/~marcus/kolmo.htm#tutorials) but
>
Dear Friends,]
Also see Svolzil:
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/publ.html
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Subjective measure and turing machine terminology
> > Again, I
19 matches
Mail list logo
