, will produce a fundamentally different
quantum wave function. And in fact, given the chaotic nature of the
classical world (where the flap of a butterfly's wings causes next year's
hurricane), it is likely that there are no insigificant differences.
Hal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
in branches
where you are still alive. They aren't really the same.
There are arguments against QTI but this one does not work so well.
Hal F.
that there
are legitimate observers for whom the rock is conscious. Whether there
is a sound objective basis for doing so is still unclear to me.
Hal
-universes
model we again have a simple flow of time within each universe and a very
simple representation of processes in that universe as static structures.
Hal
this
kind of explanation.
Hal
.
Is that right?
I think Jacques does not agree that he exists in the counting universe.
He wants to see a process, not a pattern. It is not clear whether
a process can be fully represented as a pattern.
Hal
, you have to say
something about at what point consciousness would go away. You also
have to say whether consciousness would go away gradually or suddenly
as larger volumes of the CA are swept into the local lookup tables.
Hal
problems, but it is appealing and
if the holes can be filled it seems to offer an answer to the question.
What do you think?
Hal
identical twin, etc. When he
finally got to where the other player was just the player in a mirror,
then finally people would push A. With two instances of the same person,
I think it would be as certain as myself in the mirror.
Hal
simulation.
Something objective like this seems necessary to reject the notion that
we live in a universe produced by a trivial program.
Hal Finney
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Juergen Schmidhuber) writes:
Ah! The point is: the information content of a particular universe U is
the length of the shortest algorithm
would conclude that
P(PI == 3.14159 | I observe N[Pi]=3.14159) would be high, as we expect.
Is this how you would work this problem, based on the strong SSA?
I'm not sure I am on the right track here...
Hal
himself interprets his consciousness in a certain way as well.
Does this self-interpretation have a privileged position, and if so could
we choose to say that it is the true consciousness of Hans himself?
Hal
conscious and unconscious entities?
It seems important to do so, otherwise there a danger that we might say
there is no moral difference between kicking a rock and kicking a puppy.
Hal
Juergen Schmidhuber writes:
Hal:
Approximate probabilities based on approximations to the
K. complexity of a string are no more computable than precise ones.
There is no fixed bound B which allows you to compute the K. complexity
of an arbitrary string within accuracy B.
You should
that the ability to perform a calculation (factoring
a sufficiently large prime) which is thought to take more computing
power than is available in the universe would make the difference between
consciousness and its absence.
Hal
to such evidence.
Hal
will eventually find yourself to be very old.
Hal
, and recover the
universal distribution?
Hal
Hal writes:
Here is a direct quote from page 24 of Chaitin's The Unknowable:
The general flavor of my work is like this. You compare the complexity of
the axioms to the complexity of the result you're trying to derive, and if
the result is more complex than the axioms, then you can not get
Wei writes, quoting Hal
In general, one might expect those minds with less observational power
and less specific knowledge and understanding of the universe to have
larger measure.
Yes, but that doesn't mean you should be surprised if you find yourself
having more observational power
posthumans who simulate variations on possible
histories? In that case only those simulations which happen to match
the past exactly would give rise to this question, which is arguably a
small fraction of simulations assuming imperfect knowledge of the past.
Hal
universe histories, as you have it above, but over all programs that
generate universes? Now we have the advantage that short programs
generate more regular universes than long ones, and the WAP grows teeth.
Hal Finney
Nick Bostrom writes:
Hal wrote:
I wonder if you consider the possibility that there is no matter of fact
as to whether we are living in a simulation? Suppose that we live in real
life, and also get simulated one or more times, then our consciousness
cannot be localized to any specific
of this
experiment. It's not that the answer to the question is unpredictable,
it's that the question is meaningless.
Hal
any differences in how we
should make our decisions. We already base them on probabilites and the
multiverse view retains probability based decision theory. However it
does perhaps change how we should view the outcomes and the effects of
what we do.
Hal Finney
the problem as I see it.
Hal
it or treat it as a parameter to be dealt
with as you like.
Hal
moment there exist other observer moments which are
subjectively in its future (equivalently, for which it is subjectively
in the past). The question is whether to interpret this fact as meaning
continued survival. Ultimately that is a matter of definitions.
Hal Finney
Hal writes:
Well any assertion [object] with a LISP elegant program size greater than N
+ 356 can not be fully described by A since you can not identify its
elegant program with A.
Agreed.
Now Chaitin says on page 24 that he can not exhibit specific true,
unprovable assertions
column is A, the last column
is B, and the middle column holds A or B in the first table and if A
then B in the second table. This is different than how I have usually
seen it displayed, where the result operation is in the rightmost column.
That accounts for part of the confusion.
Hal
. For example,
it might be possible for a brain to have dream D1 followed by dream D2,
or it could have had D2 followed by D1.
All in all I don't think this is a very promising approach.
Hal Finney
have decided to care
about a certain kind of universe? Why should this fact change what you
care about?
Hal
if we lived in Brin's golem-ridden society.
Hal
plays an important role in the formation of galaxies,
which allow for the formation of 2nd-generation stars which have enough
heavy elements that they can have planets.
Hal
objection already but I need to think
about it some more. I don't know if any of these proposals really work.
Hal
for
making decisions.
Hal
- no exclusion or other selection is needed. Actually
there would be a flow of universes between noise port types since the right
dose of true noise would change the character of the rules of a universe.
Hal
on the outputted
divisors.
The output of new copies of the incomplete Divisor and splitting traces
dovetails the dynamic.
I think this contains a UD but the unrestricted nature of the traces seems
to makes it more than that.
Yours
Hal
-Original Message-
From: everything-l
to my approach. Is it a UD?
Hal,
Is there a pattern to how the system responds to its own
incompleteness? You say that there is not a pattern to the traces, but
what do you mean by that?
---
That is not what I actually said. I indicated that there were no
restrictions on the copy
, this lack of clarity seems to have been useful given your
discussion of inconsistency driven traces. I had not considered this
before.
Yours
Hal
-Original Message-
From: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Abram Demski
Sent: Monday
. If
we are forced to attribute consciousness to sequences of events which
occur purely by luck, then causality can't play a significant role. This
is the rather surprising conclusion which I reached from these musings
on Boltzmann Brains.
Hal Finney
on the list. This
seems extremely insufficient. Thus I suspect that despite my real interest
in developing an alternative means of communication for my ideas in this
area, my primary reliance for communicating the model will unfortunately
have to remain using as small a set of words as I can muster.
Hal
Hi Everyone:
I have not posted for awhile but here is the latest revision to my model:
Hal Ruhl
DEFINITIONS: V k 04/03/10
1) Distinction: That which describes a cut [boundary], such as the cut
between red and other colors.
2) Devisor: That which encompasses a quantity
I believe Stephen Gould indicated evolution was a random walk with a lower
bound. It seems reasonable that the longest random walk would more or less
double in length more or less periodically i.e. exponential growth.
Hal Ruhl
_
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi Everyone:
I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a discussion
regarding the aspects of what we call “life” in our universe starting in a
simple manner as follows: [terms not defined herein have the usual “Laws of
Physics” definition]
1) Definition (1): Energy (E)
/2012 9:48 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Everyone:
I would like to restart my participation on the list by having a
discussion regarding the aspects of what we call life in our
universe starting in a simple manner as follows: [terms not defined
herein have the usual Laws of Physics definition]
1
:27 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine:
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html
I took a quick look. I may need some help understanding it fully. I
occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy is a spatially
uniform leak of information
, purpose, and qualia spectrum
On 11/2/2012 4:27 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Let me refer you to a very old paper of mine:
http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/life.html
I took a quick look. I may need some help understanding it fully. I
occasionally play with the idea that Dark Energy
Hi Stephen:
-Original Message-
Hi Hal,
Could it be that information is being created and forcing the
physical universe to make room for its instantiation? After all, space
is not a conserved quantity!
[HH] I think that what you mention is at least part of the source
and possibly a revision of
the above.
Thanks again for your comments.
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
on the field or a
pruning.
This discussion is important to where I want to take my posts.
Thanks
Hal
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 12:09 PM
To: everything
Hi Everyone:
I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in
the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows:
i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe
that consciousness is distributed across life entities in
Hi Everyone:
I would now like to expand the discussion re the two current conclusions in
the slightly edited version of the first post [below] as follows:
i) Consciousness: The origin and purpose of life herein leads me to believe
that consciousness is distributed across life entities in
Hi John:
See my 11/4/12 @ 4:43PM post on life re proposal ii - freewill precluded.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:57 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re
Hi Everyone:
Here are some expansions on my prior post regarding the following three
topics:
i) Consciousness: Define it for now as the detection by a life entity of the
current system energy configuration both internal and external to the life
entity sufficient to ensure its adherence to its
. This is the purpose of life herein. In other words
life's purpose is to hasten the heat death of its host universe.
Hal
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen P. King
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Hi Roger:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 11:06 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Consciousness = life = intelligence
Hi Hal Ruhl
Consciousness = life
suspect
that each individual life entity upon sufficiently close inspection will be
found to be as well.
Further the environment necessary for life to arise as I propose and be
sustainable is hardly random.
Hal
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything
/2012 11:40 AM, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Stephen:
pAP1 is #8 of the discussion initiating posts
8) Conclusion (2): Once life is present it will immediately punch as
many holes in as many Energy Hang-up Barriers as the details of the
particular life entity involved allows - this is how it realizes its
Hi Roger:
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 6:09 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Life: origin, purpose, and qualia spectrum
Hi Hal,
Just look
Hi Roger:
Roger: Talk to Dawkins. The purpose of the gene is to create more genes. So
the purpose of life (at a minimum) is to create more life.
Response from Hal: No. Life creates more life in compliance with pAP1.
A reasonable result is one heck of a mass extinction. Repeat until
://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/everything-list
Hal
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 8:42 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Life: origin
.
Therefore I propose to change heat death to operative heat death re your
finite resolving power for observers. This should allow for the
possibility of an open universe.
I am also considering changing purpose of life to function of life.
Thanks
Hal
Dear Hal,
What consequences would
someone can falsify
pAP1.
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
currently rewriting the
early post to improve clarity.]
John: I think my response to Stephen re his “finite resolution…”
responds to your post also.
Hal
AFAIK, there is no requirement for resource consumption to be
proportional to GDP. So it should be possible to save the economy
without
currently rewriting the early post to improve
clarity.]
John: I think my response to Stephen re his finite resolution. responds to
your post also.
Hal
AFAIK, there is no requirement for resource consumption to be proportional
to GDP. So it should be possible to save the economy without
should be a suitable proxy for perceived quality of life. The fly
in the ointment - there seems to always be at least one - is by (3)
and (4) the monotonic reduction in the ability to do work in that
biosphere.
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Hi Roger :
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States
Then Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
Hi Roger:
Try this and sort by wealth Gini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi Roger :
Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_distribution_in_the_United_States
Then Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
Hal
Sorry if this posts more than once - some of my posts just
Hi Roger :
Then Try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States
Hal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send
.
Thus I see the model as containing, but not limited to, comp.
Well, the model is still a work in progress.
Hal Ruhl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
of QM in many universes] is allowed within my model but is not
the only descriptor of universe evolution. Many evolving universes may
contain no such computational component.
Hal Ruhl
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
a substantially
increased level of comprehension of economics which is actually a result of
any local physics. I can't accomplish this re most of Bruno's work since I
am definitely not adequate in the relevant logic disciplines.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything
Hi Brent:
I shall try to respond tomorrow.
Hal Ruhl
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 8:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: The limit of all computations
On 5/23
started a FAQ for the list but the
project died.
Hal Ruhl
-Original Message-
From: *everything-list@googlegroups.com* everything-list@googlegroups.com[
*mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com* everything-list@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, January
On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:58:07 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:09:00AM -0800, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Hi Russell and everyone
My personal archive goes back to March of 2008 if there might be
something
in there that could help a wiki
for the list but the
project died.
Hal Ruhl
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:38 PM
To: Everything List
Subject: Re: A humble suggestion to the group
/18/2013] is at
http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
Hal Ruhl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr
and thus
unavoidable extinction event built into life and it is fully effective
absent an unnatural earlier one.
Hal Ruhl
On Monday, February 10, 2014 8:33:08 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote:
It certainly isn't natural at the rate we've been doing it. We're coming
close to a cometary impact
do make allowance for such a possibility.
See the material I pointed to: http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
Hal Ruhl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
does this lack of choice influence the origin and
structure [if this is a reasonably applicable term] of the Everything.
Hal Ruhl
On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:18:57 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Feb 2014, at 03:57, LizR wrote:
On 11 February 2014 15:22, Hal Ruhl hal
always inherently self
destructive wherever it appears in any allowed universe then why is there
such a down select in the types of allowed universes.
-
*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
Hal Ruhl
--
You
such processes will be implemented in any universe in which
they are possible. Since entropy has a fixed maximum in a closed system (a
universe) then life must enable its own extinction.
Yours
Hal
On Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:23:58 PM UTC-4, JohnM wrote:
Dear Hal Ruhl,
it has been for long since
it if it is shown to be
unrealistic] so I would deeply appreciate comments on it.
Hal Ruhl
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:28:15 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:17PM +1300, LizR wrote:
Yes, I think that's what Carl Sagan said about the possibility of life
posts], then how does this impact the
Everything since I see it as a restriction [selection] on the scope of
possible universes?
Comments welcome.
Thanks
Hal Ruhl
DEFINITIONS:
i) Distinction:
That which enables a separation such as a particular red from other colors.
ii
.
I see “A” and its traces as a UD.
As for the issue of the nature of life please see my draft at:
*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/*http://arobustfuturehistory.wordpress.com/
It is a pleasure to converse with you again.
Hal
On Monday, March 31, 2014 4:12:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno
Hi Liz:
A number can be interpreted as encoded information. The decoder can even be
a segment of the number.
Hal
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 7:53 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
it is “machine” is at least
one component of a correct and complete description of our observer
experience. This because I believe it to be a different expression part of
if not all of my approach. There may be other components but this may be
TBD.
On 01 Apr 2014, at 01:48, Hal Ruhl wrote
Hi Bruno:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 12:36:13 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hal,
Yes, we might be on the same length wave for the ultimate TOE,
Thank you
but your terming is rather terrible.
I will work on it, perhaps needing some help.
Today I tend to think of the current
my objects
because the matrix would have to have some properties.
I think that this argument as far as a material matrix goes is to a
degree along the lines of your argument but clearly I presently see
the UD as just a subset of my list's dynamic.
Hal Ruhl
description and object. Objects interact by mutually
changing just one property - their location on a Physical Reality
dimension. The change is just a shifting of boundaries between sublists.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
Hi Tom
At 11:10 AM 12/4/2006, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
The idea is presented below and its result appears to be to exclude
continuums from universes.
Assumptions:
1) There is a list of all possible properties of objects.
The above object #1 is countable by definition
?
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
properties
remain fixed. I also think that Bruno's comp model might fit inside
such a multiverse since some of the object sequences could be
associated with the trace of a UD.
Hal Ruhl
At 06:59 PM 12/31/2006, you wrote:
Hal,
so yhou look at it... (at what?) - anyway from the standpoint
be life - and even beyond that -
SAS friendly.
Hal Ruhl
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
Hi John:
Sorry I did not respond earlier.
Lately I do not have time to read the list posts and respond during the week.
At 04:02 PM 1/29/2007, you wrote:
Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up
your vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry.
*
You seem
.
Lets us say that you are correct about this
result re your model, this just seems to
reinforce the idea that it is a sub set in order
to avoid the information generating selection in the full set.
Yours
Hal Ruhl
At 11:30 AM 2/5/2007, you wrote:
Le 05-févr.-07, à 00:46, Hal Ruhl a écrit
Hi Bruno:
At 06:23 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Le 06-févr.-07, à 05:25, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :
Hal Ruhl writes:
Hi Bruno:
I do not think I fully understand what you are saying.
Suppose your model bans white rabbits from its
evolving universes - meaning I take it that all
Hi John:
Long ago there was some effort to write a FAQ for
the list. Perhaps we should give it another try.
Hal Ruhl
At 11:30 AM 2/6/2007, you wrote:
Hal and list:
I do not think anybody fully understands what
other listers write, even if one thinks so.
Or is it only my handicap?
John M
1 - 100 of 644 matches
Mail list logo
