On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:24, Nick Prince wrote:
Well, it is better to assume just the axiom of, say, Robinson
arithmetic. You assume 0, the successors, s(0), s(s(0)), etc.
You assume some laws, like s(x) = s(y) - x = y, 0 ≠ s(x), the laws
of addition, and multiplication. Then the existence of
On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:22, benjayk wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have never claim it explains something fundamental, it explains a
new problem, the problem of justifying how machine dreams glue
enough to stabilize first person plural sharable observation.
The theory
explains what exists,
On 27 Dec 2009, at 23:16, russell standish wrote:
On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 10:54:53AM -0500, John Mikes wrote:
I wonder if a 'robot' can produce a noch nie dagewesen (Ger. for
brand
new) unrelated idea?
I do know Hod Lipson from the ALife community, but am not familiar
with this
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define universe? Sorry if that question was answered
somewhere, but after a quick search I didn't find it.
Inyuki
http://www.universians.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Mindey,
I hurry to reply before some smarter guys do so on this list, so here is MY
opinion:
I consider this OUR universe a part of the Multiverse (unknown, unknowable,
but assumed) with its 'physical' (so far discovered!) built (similarly
assumed) and described as (our) so called 'physical
Bruno,
excuse me if I suggest some circularity in you reply. A learning machine
is by def. learning SOMETHING and that SOMETHING comes from its inside, if
we do not specify an 'outside' it may explore (which would not be *learning*,
rather *exploring* - a quite different ballgame - maybe followed
Dear Bruno,
for those on the list who like to solve puzzles and got stuck with the
question of my grandson:
it is the word 'incorrectly' spelled as such.
John
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to
Russell,
I made my WEB-acquaintance with Hod - his interview-picture with his
students reminded me of my then Cornelian son and friends, (before he was
for 17 yrs in IBM's development)
and saw that the 'inductive' you mention is still based on the already
known(?) elements. The creative is
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Mindey min...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I was just wondering, we are talking so much about universes, but how
do we define universe? Sorry if that question was answered
somewhere, but after a quick search I didn't find it.
To me it would be that which is
To me it would be that which is contained when you specify a number of
dimensions. 2d? The universe can be a piece of paper.
But that implies that dimensionality is a fundamental property of
reality. It is conceivable that dimensionality is not fundamental, but
rather emergent.
--
You
Bruno:
Is there a UD that is implemented in Fortran?
Ronald
On Dec 29, 4:55 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 28 Dec 2009, at 21:24, Nick Prince wrote:
Well, it is better to assume just the axiom of, say, Robinson
arithmetic. You assume 0, the
Jason Resch wrote:
Described in this article:
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2617
This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist
Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the
bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their
12 matches
Mail list logo
