To me it's very simple, and I've already laid it out in just a few words
below, and in more words in different ways in my previous posts on this
thread.
Russell, you've even said in your Why Occam's Razor paper that the
Plenitude is ontologically to Nothing. To it follows that the following
I wasn't talking about a machine translation, but a machine assisted
translation. I would take the machine translated text, and edit it
into idomatic English - using my knowledge of the French text and the
subject to assist. Diagrams would probably be left unchanged.
It will still be a large
Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life,
etc.).
It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is my
point. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things
out of thin air just as much as any other metaphysical theory. At each
Tom wrote:
Perhaps there needs to be a new thread for the new topic (Game of Life,
etc.).
It seems my original inquiry has been left unanswered, but this is my
point. My challenge was that multiverse theory is just pulling things out
of thin air just as much as any other metaphysical
I don't agree that your original query was left unanswered - it was
answered by several people, in possibly contradictory ways (that
remains to be seen - I tend to see the commonality). Perhaps you mean
the answers were unsatisfactory for you, in which case I'd be
interested in hearing from you
Yes - that's exactly what I meant. Assuming computationalism,
consciousness is implied. I do not always assume computationalism :) ...
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 02:51:24PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 05-nov.-05, ? 08:22, Russell Standish a ?crit :
Game of Life is an example 2D system
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:57:17AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote:
On Nov 5, 2005, at 2:22 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universal
computation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in
2D, but it needs to be considered.
It does imply
On Nov 6, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Russell Standish wrote:On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 09:57:17AM -0500, Bob Hearn wrote:However, one can easily imagine a perceptual 2D world existing for conscious entities. Even if there is no self-consistent 2D physics leading to atoms, planets, etc., one can
, November 05, 2005 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universal
computation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in
2D, but it needs to be considered.
I think Turing machines are impossible in 1D, however...
Cheers
On Fri, Nov
Le 03-nov.-05, à 19:29, Hal Finney a écrit :
Bruno Marchal writes:
And that illustrates the advantage of the comp theory, it gives by
construction the correct physics, without any need, for a comp
believer to verify it. Except, of course, that comp need to be
postulated and we must be open
Le 05-nov.-05, à 08:22, Russell Standish a écrit :
Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universal
computation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in
2D, but it needs to be considered.
It is easy, although very tedious, to program a Universal Dovetailer,
in the
On Nov 5, 2005, at 2:22 AM, Russell Standish wrote:Game of Life is an example 2D system capable of universalcomputation. I'm not sure this implies consciousness is possible in2D, but it needs to be considered.It does imply that if the Game of Life is the laws of physics of your universe, then
t@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 8:47
AM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Le 05-nov.-05, à 04:52, Stephen Paul King wrote( to
George):
It seems to me that the notion of
"storing" and communication 1 bit explicitly requires some form of stable
?
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: Stephen Paul King
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Le 05-nov.-05, à 04:52, Stephen Paul King wrote(
to George
I conjecture that if one can design physical laws for a universe
capable of 1) supporting the NAND function 2) storing (locally) 1 bit,
3) transmitting 1 bit from one point to another point, then one could
also generate a Turing machine in this universe which would then be
capable of
st
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 6:17
PM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
I conjecture that if one can design physical laws for a
universe capable of 1) supporting the NAND function 2) storing (locally) 1
bit, 3) transmitting 1 bit from one point to another point, then one cou
Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:23, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
I could'nt imagine what would it be for a human to knows the why and
being
able to prove it...
Then you should like comp (and its generalisation) because it explain
the why, and it justifies completely wxhy we cannot and will never been
Le 03-nov.-05, à 06:03, Hal Finney a écrit :
In short, if there really exists a simple mathematical explanation
of our universe, which IMO is a prediction of multiverse theories, I
don't see our present physical models as being very close to that goal.
That doesn't mean that multiverse
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 09:03:21PM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
I don't think most of our versions of multiverse theories depend on the
assumption that present-day physics is close to being right. It's true
that we have some efforts such as those of Russell Standish to derive QM
from a
Le 03-nov.-05, à 12:12, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
Hi Bruno,
Le Jeudi 3 Novembre 2005 11:14, vous avez écrit :
Le 02-nov.-05, à 21:23, Quentin Anciaux a écrit :
I could'nt imagine what would it be for a human to knows the why and
being
able to prove it...
Then you should like comp (and its
Hi Russel,
Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 22:11, Russell Standish a écrit :
Even then, there is still a loophole. I suspect that 3D environment
are far more likely to evolve the complex structures needed for
consciousness, so that conscious GoL observers are indeed a rare
thing. I don't know if
Russell Standish writes:
It predicts that either a) there is no conscious life in a GoL
universe (thus contradicting computationalism) or b) the physics as
seen by conscious GoL observers will be quantum mechanical in nature.
If one could establish that a given GoL structure is conscious, and
Hi Tom:
One of the goals of my search for a model was to explain why there is
an observed dynamic. The Somethings that are launched from my
Nothing/All pair include evolving Somethings [due to their
incompleteness]. This evolution causes states of universes resident
in the All to be given
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:18:01AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Hi Russel,
Le Jeudi 03 Novembre 2005 22:11, Russell Standish a ??crit??:
Even then, there is still a loophole. I suspect that 3D environment
are far more likely to evolve the complex structures needed for
consciousness,
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 03:21:50PM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
Russell Standish writes:
It predicts that either a) there is no conscious life in a GoL
universe (thus contradicting computationalism) or b) the physics as
seen by conscious GoL observers will be quantum mechanical in nature.
in being able to
explain everything in biology (to our satisfaction).
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:13:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Tom Caylor writes:
To look at this from
explaining the universe as the worm is.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:58:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Hal,
I disagree. How can the worm apply a probability distribution over
things
Tom Caylor writes:
I should make another point, that it seems very likely that the worm has no
way of developing the in-apple technology to find out about quantum
mechanics or DNA. This emphasizes the fact that we, with our quantum
theories, M-theories, and loop gravity etc. could be just as
Hi Hal,
Indeed, if intellectual progress had continued at the rate it had in ancient
Athens, for example, and provided that the Greeks overcame their disdain for
technology (which promotes as well as feeds off pure science), we would
have colonised the stars by now, and who knows where our
Le 29-oct.-05, à 00:57, Hal Finney a écrit :
I would suggest that the multiverse concept is better thought of in
somewhat different terms. It's goal is not really to explain where the
universe comes from. (In fact, that question does not even make sense
to me.)
I think we should not
My phrase something from nothing was not meant
to restrict my inquiry to origins, in the sense of time or causality,
but can be viewed in terms of information in general.
It seems that the discussion has not contradicted my initial idea that,
when it comes to explaining why things are the way
Tom Caylor writes:
I believe that my statement before:
...simply bringing in the hypothetical set of all unobservable things
doesn't explain rationally in any way (deeper than our direct
experience) the existence of observable things.
applies to the multiverse as well, since
the multiverse
Hi,
as I said before I don't think/feel that single universe is on the same level
as multiverse... Just by using absurd feeling I was talking about. If there
is a single reality, you have to anwser why this one ? why like this ? what
is the ultimate reason for the reality to be limited to this
Unfortunately lately I do not have the time to read and think through
each post but I would like to briefly point out that my approach has
the Godelian ingredients of completeness/incompleteness,
consistency/inconsistency and self reference. The power set of
divisions of the list provides [I
@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Norman Samish writes:
If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that
can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will
continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe
has been played in the past, and will be played
Norman Samish writes:
If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything that
can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and will
continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we observe
has been played in the past, and will be
--- John M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:17:12 -0800 (PST)
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED],
everything-list@eskimo.com
--- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
--Stathis Papaioannou
--- Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
--Stathis Papaioannou:
I'll grant you it may be strange, but how is it
any more pointless than
anything that can happen (or a subset thereof)
happening only once, or a
finite number of times?
Norman Samish writes:
If the
of some 1st
person aspect.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
snip
-(excerpts):
a fuzzy feeling
and any 3rd person representation is merely
an ansatz of some 1st
person aspect.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: John M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: Let
Hi John:
At 12:02 PM 10/30/2005, you wrote:
Stathis,
let me address first Tom C's objection addressing the
nothing (from which nothing can come out) - and I
wonder how Hal will feel about this:
All we can talk about as N O TH I N G is that it
does not contain anything we know about. It would
Norman Samish writes:
If the multiverse concept, as I understand it, is true, then anything
that can exist does exist, and anything that can happen has happened and
will continue to happen, ad infinitum. The sequence of events that we
observe has been played in the past, and will be played
Then in making that assertion it follows surely that we (x) are all
God (y) and God has no particular attributes that we do not possess,
being in some sense equivalent.
God would then be equivalent to Life.
Stathis may have unwittingly proven the existence of the big G
Kim Jones
On
PROTECTED];
everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Tom Caylor writes:
I just don't get how it can be rationally
justified that you can get
something out of nothing. To me, combining the
multiverse with a
selection principle
Hi,
yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality in the
faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the reality
is more absurd... How a justification for only a small part of possibilities
(and only this one) could be found ?
Quentin
Le
If we are leaving all rationality aside, then how can be talk about
relative absurdity and justification?
Tom Caylor
-Original Message-
From: Quentin Anciaux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Hi
]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:59:10 +0200
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
Hi,
yes it sounds like blind faith, but I can't see either any rationnality
in the
faith that not everything exists... If not everything exists then the
reality
is more absurd... How a justification
Tom Caylor writes:
I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get
something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a
selection principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it
is not mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of
and over
again. How strange and pointless it all seems.
Norman Samish
~
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Let There Be Something
My approach is that there is [exists] a list of possible features
of objects and ideas. This list is [at least] countably
infinite. Universes are described by the various one list to two sub
list ways of dividing this list. the number of such divisions is
uncountably infinite [a power set].
Hal Finney wrote:
Anthropic reasoning is only explanatory if you assume the
actual existence of an ensemble of universes, as multiverse models do.
The multiverse therefore elevates anthropic reasoning from something of
a tautology, a form of circular reasoning, up to an actual explanatory
52 matches
Mail list logo
