RE One page revisited again

2001-10-22 Thread H J Ruhl
Please allow me to try this one more time since I think I see why it did not make it into the posted archive and I have a change to my additional comment. In #10 I discuss the length of the descriptive string. A better way to state what is said there may be to indicate that I am only

Provability, consistency, information, computability

2001-11-26 Thread H J Ruhl
The recent posts on Does provability matter prompt the following. If information can be defined as the single valued resolution of an issue then it would seem to me that information is actually consistency. The only way I can see for all information to equal no information is for there to be

Error in Refinements to my model

2001-12-15 Thread H J Ruhl
Sorry, I missed some editing errors in the lead in to the referenced post. I meant to say: I currently define information as fact(s) that are absent counter facts. Example of counter facts [sort of]: In our universe the rules dictate that any sufficiently large mass wants to assume a shape

Refinements to my model

2001-12-11 Thread H J Ruhl
I have been having a valuable discussion on this type of modeling and this has resulted in some improvements in my approach. x I currently define information as fact(s) that are absent counter facts. Example: [sort of] In our universe the rules dictate that any

Re: Kiln People

2002-01-21 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Hal At 1/18/02, you wrote: snip I'm not convinced about the models of computation involving GTMs and such in Juergen Schmidhuber's paper. Basically these kinds of TMs can change their mind about the output, and the machine doesn't know when it is through changing its mind. So there is

Re: Juergen's paper

2002-01-23 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Matthieu: At 1/23/02, you wrote: An universe can be an oriented graph of states. Each state has no, one or more next states. It also has no, one or more previous states. While I allow that a universe can have more than one possible previous state or no previous state [when in the

Re: Juergen's paper

2002-01-23 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Matthieu: I thought I had found all cases where I used future when I wanted to use next but a few escaped and are corrected below: xx I allow that the current state of a universe contains the information necessary to list all the possible next and prior states but not to

Re: Juergen's paper

2002-01-24 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Matthieu: Another correction to my post: I said: - I allow that the current state of a universe contains the information necessary to list all the possible future and prior states but not to determine the actual prior and future states. - However, a universe may have a rule that

Histories and universes

2002-01-26 Thread H J Ruhl
Some ideas re histories and universes: 1) Definitions: Universe: A universe is defined by its current state. Identifiable past history: The prior state can be fully determined from the current state. Identifiable future history: The next state can be fully determined by the current state.

Observers

2002-01-27 Thread H J Ruhl
The reason I currently do not see observer or observation as necessary concepts is because there are no isolated systems within a universe. Rather sub systems of a universe are a summation of their prior interactions with the remainder of their universe via changes in the state of the

my model

2002-01-31 Thread H J Ruhl
If anyone is interested a draft [which changes from time to time] of my model is at a new URL: http://home.mindspring.com/~hjr2/model01.html Hal

Re: Mirror Symmetry

2002-02-03 Thread H J Ruhl
At 2/3/02, you wrote: It has been conventional wisdom that the fundamental laws of physics are not invariant under parity. Now, the computational complexity of a model that lacks mirror symmetry is much larger than a similar mirror symmetric model. It would thus be very strange if Nature is

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-15 Thread H J Ruhl
I see no reason why any difficulty along this line arises in the first place. In my model all evolving universes have rules of state succession that allow some degree of true noise entering the universe at each transition. In this venue there would be an infinite number of universes that have

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-17 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Alastair: I will read your paper, but it seems to me that the no information approach to formulating an Everything precludes selection. Selection assigns a property to a subset of the ensemble that the other members do not share. This destroys the ensemble. Prevalence being a property

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-19 Thread H J Ruhl
the Everything. Hal At 2/19/02, you wrote: The intended implication is that the minimally represented versions of universes will predominate for all possible values of m (above n+d). Sorry if that wasn't clear. - Original Message - From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-20 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Alastair: I think you still miss the thrust of my comment. As directly as I can say it: The Everything is the ensemble of all counterfactuals. The counterfactuals cancel out resulting in no information in the Everything. The Everything and the Nothing are cancelling counterfactuals and

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-20 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Russell: As to any surprise that we are in the universe we are in I see none. It is just chance. My previous post did not go into the part of my approach as to why a universe should evolve. What drives this dynamic inside an Everything? The process I have currently set up for this

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-21 Thread H J Ruhl
At 2/21/02, you wrote: If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you are also saying that random selections from all the reals between -1 and +10 do not converge towards a ratio of 10:1 for positive

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-21 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Alastair: An clarification of my analysis of your -1 to + 10 example: That is your model and it is one dimensional [call it x] that is it has one venue. Now add a dimension call it y that is infinite and perpendicular to your example's x. This is an infinite number of venues. Add the

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-22 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Alastair: I think you still fail to see my point. So here I try to draw a picture. Original single venue system [V(0)]: V(0) x -- -1 - 0 -- + 10 Take a random sample into the line. The target size between x =

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-22 Thread H J Ruhl
This is just an effort to get the diagram to post reasonably on the list archive. Original single venue system [V(0)]: V(0) x -1 - 0 --- + 10 My infinite venues system [V(0) to V(infinity)] y V(infinity) x -1 - 0

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-23 Thread H J Ruhl
- From: H J Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 February 2002 03:05 Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper Dear Alastair: I think you still fail to see my point. So here I try to draw a picture. Original single venue system [V(0)]: V(0) x

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-23 Thread H J Ruhl
In an earlier post: http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3532.html I stated: Can type #1 universes {those that do not allow true noise} become type #2 universes {Those that do allow true noise}. They must be able to or again there would be a selection. The rational is as follows:

Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

2002-02-25 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Alastair: The infinite tape was just a way to show how your example actually has a most interesting behavior under an extension to more dimensions and to infinity. I believe you still miss what I am trying to say. The nested Everythings are not and can not be exact copies of each other.

Re: Optimal Prediction

2002-03-26 Thread H J Ruhl
At 3/26/02, you wrote: Normally we do not know the true conditional probability distribution p(next event | past). But assume we do know that p is in some set P of distributions. As I posted earlier my issue with this is how does one know p is in P unless one can compute p, i.e. check it?

Re: Optimal Prediction

2002-03-28 Thread H J Ruhl
I agree at this point that the AP by itself has no predictive power. My view is that a predictor that currently works in a given universe - say the AP plus other stuff - can not be considered to continue to work. Any universe is subject to true noise either because its rules allow it [type

Re: origin of notion of computable universes

2002-04-15 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Juergen: I certainly currently agree with the idea that a particular universe is a cellular automaton but one that is subject to true noise from an external source. This does not preclude universes that are internally computational rather they are required to balance those that are not

Re: decision theory papers

2002-04-19 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Matthieu: At 4/19/02, you wrote: On 18 Apr 2002, at 20:03, H J Ruhl wrote: 5) I do not see universes as splitting by going to more than one next state. This is not necessary to explain anything as far as I can see. 6) Universes that are in receipt of true noise as part

Re: decision theory papers

2002-04-22 Thread H J Ruhl
Explorations of the definitional basis of a universe and its effect on the idea of decisions: First examine a deterministic universe j such that [using notation from a post by Matthieu Walraet]: TjTj Tj Sj(0)

Re: decision theory papers

2002-04-23 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Marcus: I have some basic issues with your post. The idea I use is that the basis of what we like to think of as our universe and all other universes is There is no information. This is not really an assumption in the sense that you can not extract anything from nothing as one usually

Re: JOINING posts

2002-06-04 Thread H J Ruhl
I am a licensed Professional Engineer. BSEE The University of Illinois - Champaign/Urbana; 1966 MSEE Syracuse University; 1970 Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu A member of Mensa From 1966 to about 1987 I worked in the power semiconductor/power electronics industry. I published some papers on the

Re: Bruno's UDA argument

2002-07-22 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Hal: The idea that the Everything does not contain the UD appears self contradictory. That said the Everything as a system is generally thought of by some at least as containing no information. [Otherwise where did this information come from?] To sustain this requirement it must

Re: Bruno's UDA argument

2002-07-23 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear John: I should be more careful when I describe my particular concept of the no information system. It is actually a system that contains the two possible expressions of no information the Nothing [no factuals of any sort] and the Everything [the ensemble of all counterfactuals]. The

Re: Bruno's UDA argument

2002-07-23 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Bruno: I remain confident that there is a link between what we both are saying. I think I must do my homework and closely study your argument. I hope circumstances will allow this. Yours Hal At 7/23/02, you wrote: At 22:11 -0700 22/07/2002, H J Ruhl wrote: Is it possible to sustain

Re: Bruno's UDA argument

2002-07-23 Thread H J Ruhl
Dear Hal: At 7/23/02, you wrote: The fact that this requires a relatively large program suggests that there is some substantial information content in the idea of running every program at once. Hal With that I have no issue but my view is that the Everything is an ensemble of

My model presented more traditionally

2002-10-10 Thread H J Ruhl
The following is a new effort to present my model in a more traditional way. The basic idea is that the concepts of nothing and everything [i.e. a maximum expression of something] are not totally antagonistic but are actually synergistic. DEFINITIONS: 1) Information: The potential to parse

Re: My model presented more traditionally

2002-10-24 Thread H J Ruhl
Refinements to the next stages of my model. Proposal A type #2 universe can look and evolve like our universe. Justification: Stage 1 Designate the succession of states for universe j as Sj(i) and its representative binary bit string as Uj(i) where i runs over some range of integers from 1

Proposition 8, effect, noise, nesting

2002-10-11 Thread H J Ruhl
Proposition 8: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random. Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5. Effect: I tried here to select a word that encompassed a sufficiently wide range of influences so that in the end the Everything summed up to no net information. One type of influence

Re: My model presented more traditionally

2002-10-12 Thread H J Ruhl
I post this again to fix a small but important error and to sustain a single thread title. Proposition 8: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random. Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5. Effect: I tried here to select a word that encompassed a sufficiently wide range of influences so

Re: My model presented more traditionally

2002-10-17 Thread H J Ruhl
Further improvememts. Proposal: The concepts of Nothing and Everything [1def] are not antagonistic, but are actually synergistic and bootstrap existence. Justification: AXIOMS: Referring first to [1def] through [6def]: 1) A void consisting of the absence of factuals herein called the

Re: Zuse's thesis web site

2002-11-06 Thread H J Ruhl
I agree as shown in a number of my posts that our universe is a CA [a 3d face centered cubic grid of regions containing points that can not leave that region is my best estimate so far], however one that is subject to an external random oracle. My model attempts to show that all universes are

Re: Algorithmic Revolution?

2002-11-20 Thread H J Ruhl
At 11/21/02, you wrote: The clockwork universe was shown to be wrong with Qunatum Mechanics. My gut feeling is that the computer universe will also be shown to be wrong. In my view there are two types of universes. Type 1 have internal rules of state succession that are like computers - UD's