Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Youness Ayaita
Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar ideas: List of all properties: The list of all possible properties objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least one object: A Nothing. A Nothing has at least one property - emptiness. The list is most

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit : On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification,

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
Just a further comment - Youness asked me about his properties idea. For me a property is something that belongs to the semantic level, not the syntactic one. It is something that distinguishes one subset of the ensemble from another. This later ends up being the results of projections in a

Re: One solution to the Measure Problem: UTM outputs a qualia, not a universe

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:25:04PM -, Rolf Nelson wrote: If I understand the Measure Problem correctly, we wonder why we find ourselves in a Goldilocks Universe of stars and galaxies rather than a simpler universe consisting solely of blackbody radiation, or a more complex,

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:22, Youness Ayaita a écrit : Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar ideas: List of all properties: The list of all possible properties objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least one object: A Nothing. A Nothing

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:51, Russell Standish a écrit : On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit : On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These

Re: Space-time is a liquid!

2007-09-17 Thread Torgny Tholerus
John Mikes skrev: 1.- Q: What are light and fermions? A: Light is a fluctuation of closed strings of arbitrary sizes. Fermions are ends of open strings. 2.- Q: Where do light and fermions come from? A: Light and fermions come from the collective motions of string-like

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: It doesn't matter. The most interesting ones, however, have inverse images of non-zero measure. ie \forall n \in N, the set O^{-1}(n) = {x: O(x)=n} is of nonzero measure. I have no clue of what you are saying here.

Re: One solution to the Measure Problem: UTM outputs a qualia, not a universe

2007-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 15-sept.-07, à 15:25, Rolf Nelson a écrit : If I understand the Measure Problem correctly, we wonder why we find ourselves in a Goldilocks Universe of stars and galaxies rather than a simpler universe consisting solely of blackbody radiation, or a more complex, unpredictable Harry Potter

Re: Space-time is a liquid!

2007-09-17 Thread John Mikes
Torgny, thanks for your explanations...Let me interject John On 9/17/07, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Mikes skrev: - 1.- Q: *What are light and fermions?* - A: Light is a fluctuation of closed strings of arbitrary sizes. Fermions are ends of open strings. -

Re: One solution to the Measure Problem: UTM outputs a qualia, not a universe

2007-09-17 Thread Rolf Nelson
World-Index-Compression Postulate: The most probable way for the output of a random UTM program to be a single qualia, is through having a part of the program calculate a Universe, U, that is similar to the universe we currently are observing; and then having another part of the program

Re: One solution to the Measure Problem: UTM outputs a qualia, not a universe

2007-09-17 Thread Rolf Nelson
and would get angry if I punched it I meant to say, would punch me back if I punched it. It's begging the question for the search algorithm to know whether the internal mental state is angry. -Rolf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you

Re: One solution to the Measure Problem: UTM outputs a qualia, not a universe

2007-09-17 Thread Rolf Nelson
The considerations trying to solve the measure problem have not been that primitive, but much better. The concept of a cubic meter won't make sense in most of the universes, and to compare infinities in a rigorous manner is nothing new to mathematicians. Both, Standish and Schmidhuber (and

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Youness: Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume. This

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread marc . geddes
On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to a preimage x, we

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread marc . geddes
On Sep 18, 1:24 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Youness: Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I am having difficultly

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is