Hi John:
My intent is to eventually "back fill" the compacted description with
additional discussion once I think it is OK. Perhaps that will
help. In that regard I currently want information to be a divisor
and packets of divisors to be a division of the [A-Inf]. I am trying
to avoid the
he product of his random generator).
Regards
John M
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Propertie
Hal,
I lost you 2) - 13): I cannot squeeze the philosophical content into a
physicalist-logical formalism. The 'terms' are naturally vague to me,
cannot follow them 'ordered. The words in your perfect schematic are
(IMO) not adequate for the ideas they are supposed to express: our
language is ina
Hi Stephen:
In response to your post I have revised my previous post.
I made division equal information and rewrote (1) and (2).
I replaced "meaningful" with "compulsatory" in various places at least for now.
The result is below.
As for associating randomness with creativity Russell argues this
Hi Hal and fellow Members,
I hae been following Hal's work for quite some time. Some comments...
- Original Message -
From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:42 AM
Hi John and Tom:
Below is a first try at a more precise expression of my current model.
1) Assume [A-Inf] - a complete, divisible ensemble of A-Inf that
contains its own divisions.
2) [N(i):E(i)] are two component divisions of [A-Inf] where i is an
index [as are j, k, p, r, t, v, and z below]
Hi John and Tom:
I am thinking about your posts.
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this gr
; The Something subset boundary dynamics/allowances described above
> appear to cover these varieties of subset evolution.
>
> 10 Creativity:
> See #8 - randomness.
>
I don't see how creativity just pops automatically out of randomness.
That's the crux of the matter.
&g
eem covered by the other discussions herein.
>
> 8) Randomness:
> Each step in the progression towards completeness provides a
> resolution to a random set of the open meaningful questions.
>
> 9) Self awareness, consciousness:
> The Something subset boundary dynami
to cover these varieties of subset evolution.
10 Creativity:
See #8 - randomness.
Subsets of evolving Somethings in my model appear to have the
properties of observers mentioned above that also seem supportable by
an Everything - all but giving meaning to data.
There is so far no subset base
10 matches
Mail list logo
