Re: Brain teaser
On 12 Mar 2013, at 14:55, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/12/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Mar 2013, at 22:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels? To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language available to the machine. This generates the stratification. Hi, ...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language available to the machine... OK, like the links in a spreadsheet... It is more subtle than that. I will come back on this soon or later (on FOAR). It is more like defining a non founded relation in a founded structure. Is that not doing it backwards? Why not start with the non-well founded structure first and then show well founded substructures in it? Because we want to explain the complex things from the simpler one, not the contrary. So you seem to be OK with only using reductionism... ISTM that we should consider our ontological theory to have the most general primitives and build subtractively to our level. ? It is not reductionism. It is Occam razor. We should not introduce unnecessary hypotheses. It is not eliminativism nor reductionism, as it provides the most general notion at some other (epistemological) levels. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 11 Mar 2013, at 22:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels? To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language available to the machine. This generates the stratification. Hi, ...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language available to the machine... OK, like the links in a spreadsheet... It is more subtle than that. I will come back on this soon or later (on FOAR). It is more like defining a non founded relation in a founded structure. Is that not doing it backwards? Why not start with the non-well founded structure first and then show well founded substructures in it? Because we want to explain the complex things from the simpler one, not the contrary. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/12/2013 9:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Mar 2013, at 22:16, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels? To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language available to the machine. This generates the stratification. Hi, ...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language available to the machine... OK, like the links in a spreadsheet... It is more subtle than that. I will come back on this soon or later (on FOAR). It is more like defining a non founded relation in a founded structure. Is that not doing it backwards? Why not start with the non-well founded structure first and then show well founded substructures in it? Because we want to explain the complex things from the simpler one, not the contrary. So you seem to be OK with only using reductionism... ISTM that we should consider our ontological theory to have the most general primitives and build subtractively to our level. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels? To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language available to the machine. This generates the stratification. Hi, ...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language available to the machine... OK, like the links in a spreadsheet... It is more subtle than that. I will come back on this soon or later (on FOAR). It is more like defining a non founded relation in a founded structure. Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/11/2013 9:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 21:51, Stephen P. King wrote: On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels? To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language available to the machine. This generates the stratification. Hi, ...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language available to the machine... OK, like the links in a spreadsheet... It is more subtle than that. I will come back on this soon or later (on FOAR). It is more like defining a non founded relation in a founded structure. Is that not doing it backwards? Why not start with the non-well founded structure first and then show well founded substructures in it? Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being
ridiculous !
This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.
Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with a
proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...
The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.
Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?
Yes. But not at the same level.
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is
ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...},
with the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological as
opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means
believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of course,
and that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely
arithmetical proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are
epistemological because they involve a machine, and a proposition
coded in the machine language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describes
the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical proposition
with their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmetical
proposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the observation of
some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I
don't want to be long.
I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK. Precision
has its place and time but not here when our time to respond is
limited.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age
7 to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how
a digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew
already, in some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. I
have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd
comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely
said. This include children.
But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you
demonstrate above.
On the contrary. Children uses plain language. You give always too
much precise answer but with a non relevant precision. Here you were
just wrong, but no matter how we try to make the point, you will evade
it by a 1004 move, an allusion, or on opinion assertion, making hard
to progress.
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal
number by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer
should be astonished.
OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you
add more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?
Relative to what?
Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that we
assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing the
combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to
the base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.
Fine, could you consider how the general pattern of this can be
seen in the isomorphisms of universal numbers?
Which isomorphisms?
Consider how many different languages humans use to describe the
same physical world, we would think it silly if someone made claims
that only English was the 'correct' language. So too with mathematics.
You confuse the content of mathematics and the language used. The
mathematical reality has nothing to do with language.
You attribute to me the idea that chalkboard don't exist. Did I
ever said that?
UDA Step 8.
Many others have already told you this many times. UDA step 8
concludes that chalkboard does not exist in a primary sense. Not
that chalkboard does not exist in the observable sense.
OK, my point is that just as the chalkboard emerges so too do the
possible arithmetic representations of said chalkboard.
That could make sense if you put the card on the table, and tell what
you are assuming, and how the numbers emerge
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being ridiculous !
This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.
Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with a
proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...
The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.
Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?
Yes. But not at the same level.
Hi Bruno,
OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...},
with the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological as
opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means
believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of course, and
that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely arithmetical
proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are epistemological because
they involve a machine, and a proposition coded in the machine
language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describes
the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical proposition
with their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmetical
proposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the observation of
some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I
don't want to be long.
I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK. Precision
has its place and time but not here when our time to respond is limited.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age 7
to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how a
digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew already,
in some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. I
have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd
comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely
said. This include children.
But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you
demonstrate above.
On the contrary. Children uses plain language.
No, they use naive language. They do not assume that they know what
they do not know.
You give always too much precise answer but with a non relevant
precision. Here you were just wrong, but no matter how we try to make
the point, you will evade it by a 1004 move, an allusion, or on
opinion assertion, making hard to progress.
You are claiming that my question is incoherent. OK, let us move along.
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal
number by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer
should be astonished.
OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you
add more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?
Relative to what?
Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that we
assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing the
combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to
the base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.
Fine, could you consider how the general pattern of this can be
seen in the isomorphisms of universal numbers?
Which isomorphisms?
Relations between universal numbers that are equivalences. For
example, the universal number that encodes the statement X in language B
is isomorphic to the statement X in language A, iff B(X) = A(X) ...
Consider how many different languages humans use to describe the same
physical world, we would think it silly if someone made claims that
only English was the 'correct' language. So too with mathematics.
You confuse the content of mathematics and the language used. The
mathematical reality has nothing to do with language.
No, that is not my sin. My sin is that I do not know exactly now to
communicate in
Re: Brain teaser
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto
Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless
and doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being
ridiculous !
This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.
Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with
a proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...
The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.
Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?
Yes. But not at the same level.
Hi Bruno,
OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences),
you need to represent the machine in the language available to the
machine. This generates the stratification.
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is
ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...},
with the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological
as opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting
means believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of
course, and that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely
arithmetical proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are
epistemological because they involve a machine, and a proposition
coded in the machine language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which
describes the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical
proposition with their usual standard interpretation). Then some
arithmetical proposition are singled out as epistemological
because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the observation
of some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of
the corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further
question. I don't want to be long.
I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK.
Precision has its place and time but not here when our time to
respond is limited.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from
age 7 to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans
knowing how a digital machine work. Of course, the digital
machine knew already, in some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong.
I have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd
comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just
precisely said. This include children.
But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you
demonstrate above.
On the contrary. Children uses plain language.
No, they use naive language. They do not assume that they know
what they do not know.
And you do?
You give always too much precise answer but with a non relevant
precision. Here you were just wrong, but no matter how we try to
make the point, you will evade it by a 1004 move, an allusion, or
on opinion assertion, making hard to progress.
You are claiming that my question is incoherent. OK, let us move
along.
No, I was claiming that you were wrong. You said I don't take into
account children, but I do.
AUDA can be said to take into account all creatures, or all Löbian
consistent extensions of elementary arithmetic.
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal
number by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer
should be astonished.
OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you
add more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word
mean? Relative to what?
Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that
we assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing
the combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to
the base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.
Fine, could you consider how the general pattern of this can be
seen in the isomorphisms of universal numbers?
Which isomorphisms?
Relations between universal numbers that are equivalences. For
example, the universal number that
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being
ridiculous !
This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.
Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with
a proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...
The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.
Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?
Yes. But not at the same level.
Hi Bruno,
OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences),
you need to represent the machine in the language available to the
machine. This generates the stratification.
This in not ontic as it implies an extension, as in: Machine X is
represented by machine X' which is represented by machine X'' which is
represented by ... And, some how X does not equal X
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is
ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...},
with the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological
as opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting
means believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of
course, and that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely
arithmetical proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are
epistemological because they involve a machine, and a proposition
coded in the machine language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which
describes the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical
proposition with their usual standard interpretation). Then some
arithmetical proposition are singled out as epistemological
because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the observation
of some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I
don't want to be long.
I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK. Precision
has its place and time but not here when our time to respond is
limited.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age
7 to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing
how a digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew
already, in some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong.
I have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd
comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely
said. This include children.
But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you
demonstrate above.
On the contrary. Children uses plain language.
No, they use naive language. They do not assume that they know
what they do not know.
And you do?
How could I? Why do you think that if I do not know exactly the
language to answer your question then I must be some ...
You give always too much precise answer but with a non relevant
precision. Here you were just wrong, but no matter how we try to
make the point, you will evade it by a 1004 move, an allusion, or on
opinion assertion, making hard to progress.
You are claiming that my question is incoherent. OK, let us move
along.
No, I was claiming that you were wrong. You said I don't take into
account children, but I do.
AUDA can be said to take into account all creatures, or all Löbian
consistent extensions of elementary arithmetic.
So, I am not a creature included here, somehow, and yet my
existence is not a falsification of comp. Interesting, I am deluded
about being deluded about being deluded about being ... .
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal
number by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer
should be astonished.
OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you
add more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?
Relative to what?
Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that
we assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of
Re: Brain teaser
On 10 Mar 2013, at 11:26, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/10/2013 4:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Mar 2013, at 21:37, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto
Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless
and doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being
ridiculous !
This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an
hypothesis.
Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory
with a proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...
The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.
Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?
Yes. But not at the same level.
Hi Bruno,
OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels?
To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication
experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language
available to the machine. This generates the stratification.
This in not ontic as it implies an extension, as in: Machine X
is represented by machine X' which is represented by machine X''
which is represented by ... And, some how X does not equal X
We can do that, relatively to the base theory or to a universal
number. That's the role of the Dx = xx method. I will explain more
on the FOAR list, as I have explained this here more than once.
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is
ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0),
s(s(0)), ...}, with the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that
base level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is
ontological as opposed to epistemological proposition, which in
this setting means believed by some machine, and which I
denote by Bp. Of course, and that is what comp makes possible,
Bp is also a purely arithmetical proposition (beweisbar(p)),
but they are epistemological because they involve a machine,
and a proposition coded in the machine language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which
describes the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the
arithmetical proposition with their usual standard
interpretation). Then some arithmetical proposition are singled
out as epistemological because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the
observation of some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of
the corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further
question. I don't want to be long.
I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK.
Precision has its place and time but not here when our time to
respond is limited.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from
age 7 to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans
knowing how a digital machine work. Of course, the digital
machine knew already, in some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more
wrong. I have no clue why you make such ad hominem and
completely absurd comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just
precisely said. This include children.
But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you
demonstrate above.
On the contrary. Children uses plain language.
No, they use naive language. They do not assume that they know
what they do not know.
And you do?
How could I? Why do you think that if I do not know exactly the
language to answer your question then I must be some ...
You give always too much precise answer but with a non relevant
precision. Here you were just wrong, but no matter how we try to
make the point, you will evade it by a 1004 move, an allusion, or
on opinion assertion, making hard to progress.
You are claiming that my question is incoherent. OK, let us
move along.
No, I was claiming that you were wrong. You said I don't take into
account children, but I do.
AUDA can be said to take into account all creatures, or all Löbian
consistent extensions of elementary arithmetic.
So, I am not a creature included here,
No, you are.
somehow, and yet my existence is not a falsification of comp.
Interesting, I am deluded about being deluded about being deluded
about being ... .
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal
number by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer
should
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/10/2013 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Mar 2013, at 09:31, Stephen P. King wrote: OK, what generates or requires the stratification into levels? To ask a machine about herself (like in self-duplication experiences), you need to represent the machine in the language available to the machine. This generates the stratification. Hi, ...represent the machine (to the interviewer) in the language available to the machine... OK, like the links in a spreadsheet... -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't think we know that. This can only be an hypothesis, or a
consequence of an hypothesis. The same is true for the proposition we
are not machine.
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...}, with
the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological as
opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means
believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of course, and
that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely arithmetical
proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are epistemological because
they involve a machine, and a proposition coded in the machine language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describes
the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical proposition
with their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmetical
proposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the observation of
some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I don't
want to be long.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age 7
to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how a
digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew already,
in some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. I
have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely
said. This include children.
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal number
by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer should be
astonished.
OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you
add more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?
Relative to what?
Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that we
assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing the
combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to the
base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.
You attribute to me the idea that chalkboard don't exist. Did I
ever said that?
UDA Step 8.
Many others have already told you this many times. UDA step 8
concludes that chalkboard does not exist in a primary sense. Not that
chalkboard does not exist in the observable sense. That would
instantaneously refutes comp. The conclusion is that physics is not
the fundamental science, and that it is reduced to arithmetic. Not
that physics is non sense. OIn the contrary, with comp we see how a
physical reality, even a quantum one, is unavoidable for almost all
universal numbers.
Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not
logically inconsistent with consciousness.
I must disagree. It is baked into the topology of classical
mechanics that a system cannot semantically act upon itself.
? (that seems to contradict comp, and be rather 1004)
You do not seem consider the need to error correct and adapt to
changing local conditions for a conscious machine nor the need to
maintain access to low entropy resources. Your machines are never
hungry.
Take the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky way at the level of strings,
with 10^1000 decimals. Its evolution is emulated by infinitely many
arithmetical relation, and in all of them a lot of machines are
hungry, and many lack resources, and other do not. Now, such
computation might not have the right first person indeterminacy
measure, but in this case comp is false, and if someone show that he
will refute comp. But in all case, arithmetic handle all relative
resources. So you it seems that you are not correct here.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group,
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/9/2013 6:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Stephen P. King wrote (to Alberto Corona):
We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and
doubly so!
I don't think we know that.
Hi Bruno,
Of course we don't know that for sure... you are being ridiculous !
This can only be an hypothesis, or a consequence of an hypothesis.
Yes, of course. We can only have certainty within a theory with a
proof, for your idea of we know that. I understand...
The same is true for the proposition we are not machine.
Is not p, of Bpp, a hypothesis as well?
Stephen P. King wrote (to me):
But neither Bp nor Bp p are ontological. Only p is is.
Could you make a mental note to elaborate on how p is ontological?
I have fixed the base ontology with N = {0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...}, with
the usual successor, + and * axioms/laws.
p is used for an arbitrary arithmetical proposition, at that base
level, with its usual standard interpretation. It is ontological as
opposed to epistemological proposition, which in this setting means
believed by some machine, and which I denote by Bp. Of course, and
that is what comp makes possible, Bp is also a purely arithmetical
proposition (beweisbar(p)), but they are epistemological because
they involve a machine, and a proposition coded in the machine language.
When I write p, I allude to the arithmetical truth, which describes
the ontology chosen (the numbers, and the arithmetical proposition
with their usual standard interpretation). Then some arithmetical
proposition are singled out as epistemological because they describe:
- the thinking of some machine, like Bp, or
- the knowledge of some machine, like Bp p, or the observation of
some machine like Bp Dt, or
- the feeling of some machine like Bp Dt p.
See my papers for the precise morphisms, and the derivation of the
corresponding logics and mathematics. Or ask further question. I don't
want to be long.
I wish that you could speak vaguely with us and be OK. Precision
has its place and time but not here when our time to respond is limited.
That's why I have done UDA, for all good willing humans, from age 7
to 77, and AUDA, for all digital machines and humans knowing how a
digital machine work. Of course, the digital machine knew already, in
some (platonic) sense.
You seem sometimes to forget that the children also have
questions for you to answer...
???
Why do you ever make statements like that. Nothing is more wrong. I
have no clue why you make such ad hominem and completely absurd comment.
I love answer all genuine question, from 7 to 77, I just precisely
said. This include children.
But you demand too much exactness in a response, as you demonstrate
above.
Human can choose by themselves. Human are relative universal number
by comp, even without step 8. Only a non-comp believer should be
astonished.
OK. Human are relative universal number by comp... Could you add
more detail to this answer? What is the 'relative' word mean?
Relative to what?
Either (according to the context):
-relative to the base theory (the starting universal system that we
assume. I have chosen arithmetic (after an attempt of chosing the
combinators, but people are less familiar with them), or
-relative to a universal number, which is universal relatively to the
base theory, or
-relative to a universal number, which is relative to a universal
number, which is relative to the base theory, etc.
Fine, could you consider how the general pattern of this can be
seen in the isomorphisms of universal numbers? Consider how many
different languages humans use to describe the same physical world, we
would think it silly if someone made claims that only English was the
'correct' language. So too with mathematics.
You attribute to me the idea that chalkboard don't exist. Did I ever
said that?
UDA Step 8.
Many others have already told you this many times. UDA step 8
concludes that chalkboard does not exist in a primary sense. Not that
chalkboard does not exist in the observable sense.
OK, my point is that just as the chalkboard emerges so too do the
possible arithmetic representations of said chalkboard. They are
co-dependent in my dual aspect theory. I do not understand how you
explain the emergence of the chalkboard except to refer to a vague
arithmetic body problem'.
That would instantaneously refutes comp. The conclusion is that
physics is not the fundamental science, and that it is reduced to
arithmetic. Not that physics is non sense. OIn the contrary, with comp
we see how a physical reality, even a quantum one, is unavoidable for
almost all universal numbers.
Yes, but can we try to restate this in a different form?
Yes, we know that classical determinism is wrong, but it is not
logically inconsistent with consciousness.
I must disagree. It is baked into the
Re: Brain teaser
Hi Stephen, What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme. That's an excellent question. I suspect a scheme might not be necessary to infer the presence of meaning, but what I'm going to say is very empirical. Suppose a message m_n, of length n, which is a string of bits (e.g m_8=10101010, with m_1=1, m_2=10, and so on) Suppose a function f that takes a message m_n and predicts m_n+1 Suppose a learning algorithm L, such that L(m_n) = f. Let's assume this algorithm does the best possible job (I know it's a stretch). Now, for any length n of message m, we can obtain an f and then measure the accuracy of f at predicting m_n at any n. We can then measure the accuracy of this function, let's call that a. So a is in [0.5, 1] If a=0.5 the message is pure noise. If a=1 the message is completely predictable, because every bit will always be a function of the previous bits. My empirical suspicion is that there is some range of a, between these extremes, where meaning lives. Something akin to what people in complex systems refer to as the edge of chaos. Cheers, Telmo. -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/8/2013 6:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Hi Stephen, What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme. That's an excellent question. I suspect a scheme might not be necessary to infer the presence of meaning, but what I'm going to say is very empirical. Suppose a message m_n, of length n, which is a string of bits (e.g m_8=10101010, with m_1=1, m_2=10, and so on) Suppose a function f that takes a message m_n and predicts m_n+1 Suppose a learning algorithm L, such that L(m_n) = f. Let's assume this algorithm does the best possible job (I know it's a stretch). Now, for any length n of message m, we can obtain an f and then measure the accuracy of f at predicting m_n at any n. We can then measure the accuracy of this function, let's call that a. So a is in [0.5, 1] If a=0.5 the message is pure noise. If a=1 the message is completely predictable, because every bit will always be a function of the previous bits. My empirical suspicion is that there is some range of a, between these extremes, where meaning lives. Something akin to what people in complex systems refer to as the edge of chaos. Cheers, Telmo. Nice! ;-) -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/8/2013 7:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive in your phone a message describing where is the next source of water but somehow the description is interspersed in the description of the complete equation of the M Theory that someone has found. You of course take the last as noise, despite that you know what is it. and you know that this message will be lost (le´ts suppose that). What is the information and how can it be measured?. Hi Alberto, If the message is a program that tells a class of autonomously mobile Turing Machines how to move from a given position to the energy supply... There could be any set of secondary messages 'in the code' at some level if the string is complex enough... who knows that AMTM they might control... Usually the study of information and the measure of it make many assumptions that made it incomplete. My idea is that it is not only the decoding, but the decrease in entropy that the receiver experiment. Such as the above example? That include the decoding + the course of actions that the receiver takes with this information. I the case of the starving person, first it experiment a reduction in stress that reduces the muscular activity and the heat produces, instead it follow a ordered set of actions until he find the food, the food will repair the structuresof the body etc. Given n number of possible strings and m possible TMs... the mind boggles! We are machines, very sophisticated, but machines nonetheless and doubly so! 2013/3/8 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net Hi, What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme. -- -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On Friday, March 8, 2013 7:41:23 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive in your phone a message describing where is the next source of water but somehow the description is interspersed in the description of the complete equation of the M Theory that someone has found. You of course take the last as noise, despite that you know what is it. and you know that this message will be lost (le´ts suppose that). What is the information and how can it be measured?. Usually the study of information and the measure of it make many assumptions that made it incomplete. My idea is that it is not only the decoding, but the decrease in entropy that the receiver experiment. That include the decoding + the course of actions that the receiver takes with this information. I the case of the starving person, first it experiment a reduction in stress that reduces the muscular activity and the heat produces, instead it follow a ordered set of actions until he find the food, the food will repair the structuresof the body etc. What if the message was the opposite? No food, bub, your next meal is all on you. Then the stress increases, increases muscular activity as they flail around looking for food and dissipating heat...finding no food, the structures of the body are not repaired, etc. Craig 2013/3/8 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net javascript: Hi, What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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-li...@**googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- Alberto. -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
2013/3/8 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Friday, March 8, 2013 7:41:23 AM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote: That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive in your phone a message describing where is the next source of water but somehow the description is interspersed in the description of the complete equation of the M Theory that someone has found. You of course take the last as noise, despite that you know what is it. and you know that this message will be lost (le´ts suppose that). What is the information and how can it be measured?. Usually the study of information and the measure of it make many assumptions that made it incomplete. My idea is that it is not only the decoding, but the decrease in entropy that the receiver experiment. That include the decoding + the course of actions that the receiver takes with this information. I the case of the starving person, first it experiment a reduction in stress that reduces the muscular activity and the heat produces, instead it follow a ordered set of actions until he find the food, the food will repair the structuresof the body etc. What if the message was the opposite? No food, bub, your next meal is all on you. Then the stress increases, increases muscular activity as they flail around looking for food and dissipating heat...finding no food, the structures of the body are not repaired, etc. Or , even worst, the message can be a lie. Then after the discovery of that, the entropy will be higher than at the beginning , at least, because the energy spent. And the disbelief in the trustworthiness of further messages Craig 2013/3/8 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net Hi, What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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-li...@**go**oglegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**c**om. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group** /everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**grou**ps/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- Alberto. -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Alberto. -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/8/2013 12:37 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Hi Stephen, According with my definition the information depends both on the message and the state of the autonomous entity. Hi Alberto, Thank you for your comments! An autonomous Turing machine (call it robot) can and maybe sould have anticipatory reactions, for example stress or depression. I agree, these are internal anticipatory conditions/reactions. This implies an internal model of the ATM that predicts the possible future state of the ATM. The former to find a solution for a problem as early as possible, the latter to conserve energy resources. These are, ultimately, the same problem. The use of the information received depends on his previous information, including his decoding software. Yes, there is a target rich field in this area for exploitable concepts and application. But that only applies to the semantic of the message. Why? What more is there? But the trust on the content of the message depends on how true is the source for the receiver, and also depend on the consistency of this information with previous informations it may have. Good point. All of these are variables in some way.. degree and level of trust, consistency, meaningfulness. Defining metrics on the manifolds of these features is important. In each case the information of the message can be different. How different. Are there spectra? Modality? etc. ? What happens if the receptor receive a message with a program to decode further valuable information? We can iterate this to various depths, no? The message could be like a multifractal with differing patterns at differing scales. If the receptor has anticipatory reactions, It depends on if the receiver knows in advance the utility of the program or not. But at the end these important messages will be decoded anyway isn't? so both paths reach identical entropy but the information received by the message is different, according with my definition. That may sound paradoxical, but to apply the decoder to the critic messages, the robot need to receive the message the last decoder is for these next messages or any other message that includes this as a consequence, either before or after receiving the decoder. That reduces the second case to the first. So the amount of information received may be the same after all. and both processes are identical with different ordering of the same or similar messages. GOOD! Elaborate on this please. There is another possibility: that the robot alone may discover this information by trial and error, variation and selection , conjectures and refutations or any other darwinian processes. There are some other interesting cases: lies, wrong information etc. To summarize, the information depends on the message content and the state of the receiver. And the state of the environment in which the ATM finds itself. I remark also that any turing machine (or a computer) either it dissapear or it is by definition part of an autonomous system or an extension of it. For example my laptop is an extension of myself. I maintain its entropy by recharging its batteries and cleaning it. he gives information to me. We agree 100%. 2013/3/8 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 3/8/2013 7:41 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That may be not enough. suppose that you are starving, and you receive in your phone a message describing where is the next source of water but somehow the description is interspersed in the description of the complete equation of the M Theory that someone has found. You of course take the last as noise, despite that you know what is it. and you know that this message will be lost (le´ts suppose that). What is the information and how can it be measured?. Hi Alberto, If the message is a program that tells a class of autonomously mobile Turing Machines how to move from a given position to the energy supply... There could be any set of secondary messages 'in the code' at some level if the string is complex enough... who knows that AMTM they might control... Usually the study of information and the measure of it make many assumptions that made it incomplete. My idea is that it is not only the decoding, but the decrease in entropy that the receiver experiment. Such as the above example? That include the decoding + the course of actions that the receiver takes with this information. I the case of the starving person, first it experiment a reduction in stress that reduces the muscular activity and the heat produces, instead it follow a ordered set of actions until he find the food, the food will repair the structuresof the body etc. Given n number of possible strings and m possible TMs... the mind boggles!
Re: Brain teaser
Stephen, you know my aversion against random: it is a disorderly sequence the origination of which is not (yet?) disclosed to us - usually excluded from our ordinate view of nature since it deprives the prediction according to the so far derived (physical?) laws. My second part to your question: Meaningful is derived as based on our so far accumulated knowledge about the world. It grows steadily over the millennia. So which 'meaningful' do you mean? yesterday's, or of 1000BC? Your correct decryption scheme is by the 2nd par. above. Regards John M On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi, What is the difference between a random sequence of bits and a meaningful message? The correct decryption scheme. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Brain teaser
On 3/8/2013 3:05 PM, John Mikes wrote: Stephen, you know my aversion against random: it is a disorderly sequence the origination of which is not (yet?) disclosed to us - usually excluded from our ordinate view of nature since it deprives the prediction according to the so far derived (physical?) laws. My second part to your question: Meaningful is derived as based on our so far accumulated knowledge about the world. It grows steadily over the millennia. So which 'meaningful' do you mean? yesterday's, or of 1000BC? Hi John, Knowledge is really just the result of a successful decryption scheme acting on what appears to all* observers to be a random string (modulo representations). The accumulate wisdom that one machine might know is not necessarily equal to that of another and thus should almost never be used as an objective or global measure. Meanigfulness might be defined as the measure of the ability to use some lattice of knowledge to generate some standard of work, BTU, horsepower, flops, etc. Your correct decryption scheme is by the 2nd par. above. Regards John M My use of the word 'all' is hereby redefined to mean all of the members of some set or equivalence that might be non-regular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_regularity. -- Onward! Stephen -- 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...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
