Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Oct 2011, at 22:40, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:08:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories, we're agreed, are uncountable in number, but

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 26 Oct 2011, at 05:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/25/2011 4:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:08:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories,

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-26 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/26/2011 12:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Oct 2011, at 05:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/25/2011 4:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:08:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-25 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:08:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories, we're agreed, are uncountable in number, but OMs (bundles of histories compatible with the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-25 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/25/2011 4:40 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 04:08:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories, we're agreed, are uncountable in number, but OMs

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 23 Oct 2011, at 04:41, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories, we're agreed, are uncountable in number, but OMs (bundles of histories compatible with the here and now) are surely still countable. This is not obvious for

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-23 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/22/2011 10:41 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories, we're agreed, are uncountable in number, but OMs (bundles of histories compatible with the here and now) are surely still countable. This is not obvious for me. For

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-23 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/22/2011 10:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:01:40AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, The Stone duality was first found as an isomorphism between Boolean algebras and totaly disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces. Generalizations are being studied.

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-23 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 22 Oct 2011, at 16:46, Stephen P. King wrote: How is a space defined in strictly arithmetic terms? Why do you want to define it in arithmetic. With comp, arithmetic can be used for the ontology, but the internal epistemology needs much more. Remember that the tiny effective

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-22 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Oct 2011, at 20:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/21/2011 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2011, at 15:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/21/2011 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2011, at 05:30, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Bruno

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-22 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/22/2011 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2011, at 20:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/21/2011 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Oct 2011, at 15:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/21/2011 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2011, at 05:30, Russell Standish wrote: On

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-22 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:14:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: So the histories, we're agreed, are uncountable in number, but OMs (bundles of histories compatible with the here and now) are surely still countable. This is not obvious for me. For any to computational states which are in a

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-22 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 02:01:40AM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, The Stone duality was first found as an isomorphism between Boolean algebras and totaly disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces. Generalizations are being studied. Consider what these topological spaces look

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-21 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/21/2011 1:05 AM, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:00:55PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: There has to be some form of identity thesis between brain and mind that prevents the Occam catastrophe, and also prevent the full retreat into solipsism. I think it very much an open

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 19 Oct 2011, at 05:30, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: This, ISTM, is a completely different, and more wonderful beast, than the UD described in your Brussells thesis, or Schmidhuber's '97 paper. This latter beast must truly give

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-21 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/21/2011 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2011, at 05:30, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: This, ISTM, is a completely different, and more wonderful beast, than the UD described in your Brussells thesis, or Schmidhuber's '97

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-21 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 21 Oct 2011, at 15:08, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/21/2011 8:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Oct 2011, at 05:30, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: This, ISTM, is a completely different, and more wonderful beast, than the UD

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-20 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/18/2011 11:30 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: This, ISTM, is a completely different, and more wonderful beast, than the UD described in your Brussells thesis, or Schmidhuber's '97 paper. This latter beast must truly give rise to a

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-20 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:00:55PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: There has to be some form of identity thesis between brain and mind that prevents the Occam catastrophe, and also prevent the full retreat into solipsism. I think it very much an open problem what that is. Hi Russell,

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-19 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: This, ISTM, is a completely different, and more wonderful beast, than the UD described in your Brussells thesis, or Schmidhuber's '97 paper. This latter beast must truly give rise to a continuum of histories, due to the random

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-18 Thread Peter Kinnon
While the comments made here make interesting and amusing reading the underlying rationale of COMP as an attempt to resolve the mind-body problem which worried earlier philosophers is, in my view fatally flawed. Here are some of the main reasons: 1. There is no longer a mind-body problem.

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Peter, On 18 Oct 2011, at 13:00, Peter Kinnon wrote: While the comments made here make interesting and amusing reading the underlying rationale of COMP as an attempt to resolve the mind-body problem which worried earlier philosophers is, in my view fatally flawed. Here are some of the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Russell, I have been guilty of responding a little too quickly to your posts :). No problem. I want to just focus on the following exchange about the Universal dovetailer, and put aside questions of ontology, measure, induction, anthropic principle, etc. On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Oct 2011, at 19:27, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 22:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If you are really humble, just don't make any statements about whether you reasoning is valid or not. I don't defend any truth but I am still offering a

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2011, at 00:10, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:53:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2011, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 05:01:26PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote: I don't see

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-16 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 09:33:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fair point. Let me rephrase: Why couldn't the physical universe be a set of computations, all giving rise to the same experienced history. If by this you mean that the physical universe is the first person sharable experience due

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 16 Oct 2011, at 11:31, Russell Standish wrote: On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 09:33:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Fair point. Let me rephrase: Why couldn't the physical universe be a set of computations, all giving rise to the same experienced history. If by this you mean that the physical

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-16 Thread Russell Standish
Dear Bruno, I have been guilty of responding a little too quickly to your posts :). I want to just focus on the following exchange about the Universal dovetailer, and put aside questions of ontology, measure, induction, anthropic principle, etc. On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 04:51:20PM +0200, Bruno

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Oct 2011, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 05:01:26PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote: I don't see why Bayes' theorem assumes a physical universe. Bayes' theorem does not assume a physical universe. But some use

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Oct 2011, at 05:44, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:40:04PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/14/2011 5:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I know there are only a countable number of programs. Does this entail only a countable number of histories too? Or a continuum of

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-15 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 22:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If you are really humble, just don't make any statements about whether you reasoning is valid or not. I don't defend any truth but I am still offering a reasoning to you. If you find it invalid it

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-15 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 06:53:59PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Oct 2011, at 02:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 05:01:26PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote: I don't see why Bayes' theorem assumes a physical universe.

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Oct 2011, at 22:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: If you are really humble, just don't make any statements about whether you reasoning is valid or not. I don't defend any truth but I am still offering a reasoning to you. If you find it invalid it is your task to find the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-14 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote: On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:20:11PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote: I certainly appreciate you don't use Bayes' theorem in your work, but don't understand why you say you cannot use it. I am

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 05:01:26PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote: I don't see why Bayes' theorem assumes a physical universe. Bayes' theorem does not assume a physical universe. But some use of bayes theorem to justify the laws of physics,

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-14 Thread meekerdb
On 10/14/2011 5:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 05:01:26PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote: I don't see why Bayes' theorem assumes a physical universe. Bayes' theorem does not assume a physical universe. But some use of

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-14 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 06:40:04PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: On 10/14/2011 5:50 PM, Russell Standish wrote: I know there are only a countable number of programs. Does this entail only a countable number of histories too? Or a continuum of histories? I did think the latter (and you seemed to

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Oct 2011, at 21:43, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: You might say cannot be captured entirely, but anyone has the right to suggest hypotheses and reasoning in any field. Questions makes always sense. I think you might attribute to me pretensions that I do not have. If you just ask

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Oct 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:54:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2011, at 22:14, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-13 Thread Terren Suydam
Just to clarify, when I say we need discipline to avoid getting emotionally attached to beliefs, I don't mean it in the sense of punishment and reward. I mean disciplined (not lazy) and rigorous about always being willing to doubt what we hold to be true, and that this goes against our natural

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-13 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: If you are really humble, just don't make any statements about whether you reasoning is valid or not. I don't defend any truth but I am still offering a reasoning to you. If you find it invalid it is your task to find the flaw. That's is by definition of

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-13 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:20:11PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Oct 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote: I certainly appreciate you don't use Bayes' theorem in your work, but don't understand why you say you cannot use it. I am not saying that we cannot use it in some context. I

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Oct 2011, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote: On 10/11/2011 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My non observed future; or computational extensions, is selected, making the comp physics explainable in term of statistics on computations. This leads to general physical laws invariant for all

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Oct 2011, at 22:14, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is selected from the set of all infinite strings (which I call descriptions in my book). My non observed future; or

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 12 Oct 2011, at 03:01, Terren Suydam wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: That's a nice strategy to be right, that's for sure. You just don't understand it, study more. The ideas are understandable if you're willing to depart from

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread Terren Suydam
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That reminds me an argument of Bruno in Lewis Carroll's Sylvie and Bruno, about Spinach. If I remember well. Something like:  '---don't make me *love* spinach because thats really the worst possible which can happen for

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread benjayk
I am omitting a lot, honestly most of the stuff isn't that relevant for what I really want to express. I guess I still talk too much. Bruno Marchal wrote: Explaining consciousness in the sense you mean it (explain it *from* something) is nonsense, as consciousness is already required

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread benjayk
terren wrote: Hey Benjay, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Honestly, I won't bother to study a theory in much depth that I hold to be utterly implausible at the start. I have to wonder why you're putting so much energy into refuting an

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread benjayk
terren wrote: On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: That reminds me an argument of Bruno in Lewis Carroll's Sylvie and Bruno, about Spinach. If I remember well. Something like:  '---don't make me *love* spinach because thats really the worst possible

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:54:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Oct 2011, at 22:14, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is selected from the set of all infinite strings (which I

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Oct 2011, at 22:50, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2011, at 18:29, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Oct 2011, at 02:58, Russell Standish wrote: On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:13:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: here you are summing up well my critics of Schmidhuber and Tegmark which I have done when entering in this list discussion. This has given the big debate between ASSA and RSSA (the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread meekerdb
On 10/11/2011 9:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My non observed future; or computational extensions, is selected, making the comp physics explainable in term of statistics on computations. This leads to general physical laws invariant for all observers. There is no selection of a particular

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The point is that successor and 0 become meaningless, or just mere symbols, when removed from that context. What context are you talking about. The theory is interpretation independent. The interpretations themselves are part of model

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:03:42PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is selected from the set of all infinite strings (which I call descriptions in my book). My non observed future; or computational extensions, is selected, making the comp

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 11, 4:14 pm, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: That is the Occam catastrophe. Something prevents the world from being too simple. I think that something is the Anthropic Principle, but I'm interested if you have an alternative suggestion. In addition to the Anthropic

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-11 Thread Terren Suydam
Hey Benjay, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Honestly, I won't bother to study a theory in much depth that I hold to be utterly implausible at the start. I have to wonder why you're putting so much energy into refuting an idea you feel to be

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Stephen P. King
On 10/6/2011 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why. Concrete objects can be helpful to grasp elementary ideas about numbers for *some* people, but they might be

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2011, at 20:28, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2011 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Depends on what you mean by the whole of physics. Good question. When physics is inferred from observation, there is no conceptual mean to distinguish physics from geography, except for a fuzzy level of

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2011, at 18:20, John Mikes wrote: In the Bruno - Brent exchange I enjoyed Bruno''s remarks Usually I agree with BrentM. Probability (in my terms) means a distribution within infinite bounds, no specifics for probable/non probable. The 'fantasy-world' of physics is a time-related

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2011, at 18:29, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm just saying it can't turn blue or taste like broccoli. Assuming

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2011, at 22:45, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then, unless you see a flaw in the reasoning, you should know that at the obtic level, we don't need more, nor can we use more than the countable collection of finite things, once we assume mechanism. For the flaw in the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 10 Oct 2011, at 08:21, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/6/2011 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why. Concrete objects can be helpful to grasp elementary ideas about

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread meekerdb
On 10/9/2011 11:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Reality is an idea itself. [SPK] Whose idea exactly? If there is no one to whom Reality has a meaning does it have a meaning? No. You seem to assume that meaningfulness exist in the absence of a subject to whom that meaning obtains. That is a

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread meekerdb
On 10/9/2011 11:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: What do you propose as an alternative theory? My point is just that if we say yes to the doctor, then we have literally no choice on this matter. [SPK] To assume Yes Doctor is to assume that the physical reality of substitution exists. This

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2011, at 18:29, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm just saying it can't turn blue or

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread meekerdb
On 10/10/2011 1:50 PM, benjayk wrote: I am aware of that. It is obvious that this is what you searching. The point is, if you try to explain concsciousness you are applying a concept to something that just doesn't fit what is talked about. Explaining consciousness in the sense you mean it

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: On 10/10/2011 1:50 PM, benjayk wrote: I am aware of that. It is obvious that this is what you searching. The point is, if you try to explain concsciousness you are applying a concept to something that just doesn't fit what is talked about. Explaining consciousness in the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:13:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: here you are summing up well my critics of Schmidhuber and Tegmark which I have done when entering in this list discussion. This has given the big debate between ASSA and RSSA (the absolute and the relative

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:15, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2011 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 10/7/2011 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed with comp, or with other everything type of theories, the problem is that such fantasy worlds might be too much

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why. Concrete objects can be

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm just saying it can't turn blue or taste like broccoli. Assuming non-comp. There is no assumption needed for that. It is a category error

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread David Nyman
On 9 October 2011 14:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Can you find any number(s) flying around that has any claim to an internal view right now? Yes. Although the number per se, like programs and brains, will refer only to the relations that the 1-person associated with that number

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread John Mikes
In the Bruno - Brent exchange I enjoyed Bruno''s remarks Usually I agree with BrentM. Probability (in my terms) means a distribution within infinite bounds, no specifics for probable/non probable. The 'fantasy-world' of physics is a time-related explanatory Procrustean bed for those partly (maybe

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I'm not saying that arithmetic isn't an internally consistent logic with unexpected depths and qualities, I'm just saying it can't turn blue or taste like broccoli. Assuming non-comp. There is no assumption needed for

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Oct 2011, at 16:46, David Nyman wrote: On 9 October 2011 14:37, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Can you find any number(s) flying around that has any claim to an internal view right now? Yes. Although the number per se, like programs and brains, will refer only to the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread meekerdb
On 10/9/2011 3:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Depends on what you mean by the whole of physics. Good question. When physics is inferred from observation, there is no conceptual mean to distinguish physics from geography, except for a fuzzy level of generality. But UDA explains where the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why.

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-09 Thread benjayk
benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 20:51, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote:

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why. Concrete objects can be helpful to grasp elementary ideas about numbers for *some* people, but they might be embarrassing for others.

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 10/7/2011 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed with comp, or with other everything type of theories, the problem is that such fantasy worlds might be too much probable, contradicting the observations. I don't see how probability theory is

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Oct 2011, at 17:33, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: meekerdb wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But to get the comp point, you don't need to decide what numbers are, you need only to agree with or just assume some principle, like 0 is not a successor of any natural numbers, if x ≠ y then s(x) ≠ s(y), things like

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Oct 2011, at 22:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 7, 9:21 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2011, at 23:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: The point is that a definition

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread meekerdb
On 10/8/2011 5:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Oct 2011, at 19:45, meekerdb wrote: On 10/7/2011 6:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indeed with comp, or with other everything type of theories, the problem is that such fantasy worlds might be too much probable, contradicting the observations. I

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2011, at 13:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why. Concrete objects can be helpful to grasp elementary ideas about

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: and build our number system around that. Like non-Euclidean arithmetic. That already exists, even when agreeing with the axioms, of, say, Peano Arithmetic. We can build model of arithmetic where we have the truth of provable(0=1), despite the falsity of it in the

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 8, 10:26 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 07 Oct 2011, at 22:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: The point is that a definition doesn't say anything beyond it's definition. This is deeply false. Look at the Mandelbrot set, you can intuit   that is much more than its

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Oct 2011, at 17:33, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Oct 2011, at 23:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: The point is that a definition doesn't say anything beyond it's definition. This is deeply false. Look at the Mandelbrot set, you can intuit

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Oct 2011, at 23:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:44, benjayk wrote: I'd be very interested in you attempt to explain addition and multplication without using numbers, though. I am not sure this makes any

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 7, 9:21 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2011, at 23:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: The point is that a definition doesn't say anything beyond it's definition.

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 7, 9:27 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Oct 2011, at 23:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:44, benjayk wrote: I'd be very interested in you attempt to explain addition and multplication

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Oct 2011, at 21:00, benjayk wrote: I don't see why. Concrete objects can be helpful to grasp elementary ideas about numbers for *some* people, but they might be embarrassing for others. Well, we don't need concrete

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Oct 2011, at 17:33, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 10/4/2011 1:44 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined, namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 21:59, benjayk wrote: The point is that a definition doesn't say anything beyond it's   definition. This is deeply false. Look at the Mandelbrot set, you can intuit that   is much more than its definition. That

Re: COMP is empty(?)

2011-10-06 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Oct 6, 12:04 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Oct 2011, at 22:44, benjayk wrote: I'd be very interested in you attempt to explain addition and   multplication without using numbers, though. I am not sure this makes any sense. Addition of what? In scientific theories

  1   2   >