On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 08:26:52AM -0800, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:37:06PM -0800, 1Z wrote:
> > >
> > > I mean that you do not fulfil the promise of the first sentence:
> > > "that a description logically capable of observing itself is
> > > enough
Russell Standish wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:37:06PM -0800, 1Z wrote:
> >
> > I mean that you do not fulfil the promise of the first sentence:
> > "that a description logically capable of observing itself is
> > enough to bootstrap ITSELF into existence."
> >
> ...
>
> >
> > > Therefore
On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 04:37:06PM -0800, 1Z wrote:
>
> I mean that you do not fulfil the promise of the first sentence:
> "that a description logically capable of observing itself is
> enough to bootstrap ITSELF into existence."
>
...
>
> > Therefore a Plenitude
> > of compilers will surely
Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:20:20AM -0800, 1Z wrote:
> >
> >
> > Russell Standish wrote:
> > > This is the way I put the argument in my upcoming book. You can also
> > > read the Universal Dovetailer Argument in Bruno Marchal's SANE04
> > > paper.
> > >
> > > \item That a
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 07:20:20AM -0800, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
> > This is the way I put the argument in my upcoming book. You can also
> > read the Universal Dovetailer Argument in Bruno Marchal's SANE04
> > paper.
> >
> > \item That a description logically capable of observi
Russell Standish wrote:
> This is the way I put the argument in my upcoming book. You can also
> read the Universal Dovetailer Argument in Bruno Marchal's SANE04
> paper.
>
> \item That a description logically capable of observing itself is
> enough to bootstrap itself into existence. Let me sp
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 11:45:43AM -0500, danny mayes wrote:
> Russell,
>
> Thats a good summary. However, my issue with your conclusion is this:
> even if I accept that a "machine" or a "prime mover" is not necessary,
> such explanations are still part of the plenitude and therefore part of
On Sun, Mar 19, 2006 at 01:12:36PM -0800, John M wrote:
>
> A description does nothing. Just as a blueprint (see
> the faulty argument in Intelligent DESIGN which needs
> an unnamed(!) factor to implement it).
> A 'compiler' compiles only when you add the juice to
> drive it. Design, software, h
--- Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But the tape can also hold an encoding of the Turing
> machine to
> perform the interpretation. This is the essence of
> the "compiler
> theorem". One can simply iterate this process such
> that there is no
> "concrete" machine interpreting t
ed the
> "extravagent hypothesis",
> >but really I think he's shown that it is
> unnecessary, and can be pared
> >away by Occam's razor, not that it is
> contradictory.
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >On Sat, Mar 18, 2006 at 10:37:51PM -0800, Norman
> S
lse that's describable.
Nevertheless, it seems to me there has to be a 'concrete' machine executing
the tape, irrespective of the contents of the tape.
Norman
~
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent
has to be a 'concrete' machine executing
> the tape, irrespective of the contents of the tape.
>
> Norman
> ~
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 1
g else that's describable.
Nevertheless, it seems to me there has to be a 'concrete' machine executing
the tape, irrespective of the contents of the tape.
Norman
~
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T
But the tape can also hold an encoding of the Turing machine to
perform the interpretation. This is the essence of the "compiler
theorem". One can simply iterate this process such that there is no
"concrete" machine interpreting the tape. I think this is another way
of putting the UDA.
Cheers
O
14 matches
Mail list logo
