Hi Stathis,The fact that comp = no material world is this:1- If comp is true, then you (the 1st person) is defined by all computations (an infinity) that pass through your state, hence the you does not belong to one and only one computation.
2- Then as you cannot associate you with a computation
John,
Le 16-juil.-06, à 18:07, John M a écrit :
Bruno:
1. And if someones (1-?)personal taste does not
accept the (and only) math ways?
Can I say: I am right and the rest of the world is
wrong?
I will ask her/him why. If she/he answers me that she believes in some
strong form of
Quentin, Bruno:
Quentin Anciaux wrote,
Hi Stathis,
The fact that comp = no material world is this:
1- If comp is true, then you (the 1st person) is defined by all computations (an infinity) that pass through your state, hence the "you" does not belong to one and only one computation.
Yes.
Le 17-juil.-06, à 14:14, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
x-tad-bigger I understand up to the point in step 7 where you explain the workings of the UD. You've tried explaining it again a couple of weeks ago, and I think it is clearer every time I look at it, but I still have some difficulties. I
Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
How is a class/object or type/instance within computer programing
different? Forgive me, but I am completely ignorant of the minutia of
computer programing. I was unable to get past page one of the manula on
Basic and failed Algebra in Highschool. (It
Sorry, I could not control my mouse:
just a side-remark on a side remark:
You mean that since you can't know which computation
generates your present moment, you also can't point
to which computer is generating that computation.
In my 'wholistic' (not 'holistic!) 'taste' (:I don't
call my
Le Lundi 17 Juillet 2006 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You mean that since you can't know which computation generates your present
moment, you also can't point to which computer is generating that
computation.
Worst than that, there is no computation that contains you, but an infinity
Jesse Mazer wrote:
1Z wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
1Z wrote:
If a theory can't predict the relative probabilities of X vs. Y, that is
not
in any way equivalent to the statement that it predicts X and Y are
equally
likely. One is an absence of any prediction, the other is a
Jesse Mazer wrote:
1Z wrote:
Jesse Mazer wrote:
IOW, if MMW heories worked, MMW theories would work.
No, that is not a fair paraphrase of what I said. I meant exactly what I
said I meant--if a hypothesis is not well-defined enough to tell you the
relative probability of different
Warning, I progressed in my thinking as I responded below, so please
read the whole post before taking time to respond/correct my earlier
paragraphs.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 15-juil.-06, à 02:56, Tom Caylor a écrit :
...
You've written a sort of intuitive code for G above, where you say
1Z wrote:
Erratum:
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/diagrams/time_growing.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones/met_time2.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le Lundi 17 Juillet 2006 16:14, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
You mean that since you can't know which computation generates your present
moment, you also can't point to which computer is generating that
computation.
Worst than that, there is no computation that
Tom Caylor wrote:
...
Actually, it seems we could do this by writing GEN2 to use GEN's
filter method as follows:
begin GEN2(n)
i = 1
do until i = n
generate character sequence i
run character sequence i through a fortran compiler
if the result is valid
output
13 matches
Mail list logo
