Hi Joseph,
Welcome to the list. Don't hesitate to add your cents, and making us
all more rich :)
Yes UDA is the key, but I am not well placed to advertize it. I can
only defend the (admittedly amazing, especially for aristotelians)
conclusion.
Bruno
On 07 Dec 2011, at 08:15, Joseph
Le 11-janv.-07, à 15:15, Russell Standish a écrit :
I would further hypothesise that all intelligences must
arise evolutionarily.
I do believe this too, but once an intelligence is there it can be
copied in short time. Dishonest people do that with ideas, publishers
do that with
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 03:41:31PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:45, Russell Standish a écrit :
Essentially that is the Occam razor theorem. Simpler universes have
higher probability.
In the ASSA(*) realm I can give sense to this. I think Hal Finney and
Wei Dai
Russell Standish schreef:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:26:59PM -0800, William wrote:
If the universe is computationallu simulable, then any universal
Turing machine will do for a higher hand. In which case, the
information needed is simply the shortest possible program for
On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:14:36AM -, William wrote:
I think I'm following your reasoning here, this theorem could also be
used to prove that any probability distribution for universes, which
gives a lower or equal probability to a system with fewer information;
must be wrong. Right ?
Le 13-déc.-06, à 02:45, Russell Standish a écrit :
Essentially that is the Occam razor theorem. Simpler universes have
higher probability.
In the ASSA(*) realm I can give sense to this. I think Hal Finney and
Wei Dai have defended something like this. But in the comp RSSA(**)
realm,
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:26:59PM -0800, William wrote:
If the universe is computationallu simulable, then any universal
Turing machine will do for a higher hand. In which case, the
information needed is simply the shortest possible program for
simulating the universe, the length of
Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 03:26:59PM -0800, William wrote:
If the universe is computationallu simulable, then any universal
Turing machine will do for a higher hand. In which case, the
information needed is simply the shortest possible program for
simulating the
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:54:51AM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all SASes and other
computing devices capable of simulating universe A, the probability of
being in a simulation of A is identical to simply being in universe A.
This is
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:54:51AM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all SASes and other
computing devices capable of simulating universe A, the probability of
being in a simulation of A is identical to simply being in universe
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:07:28PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
Of course this point is moot if the universe is not simulable!
Or if the length of the code has nothing to do with it's probability.
Brent Meeker
No, because that assumption (Solomonoff-Levin style probability and
its
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 01:57:40AM -0800, William wrote:
It takes precisely the same amount of information to simulate
something as the thing has in the first place. This is the definition
of information as used in algorithmic information theory. So I don't
think this latter argument
In a message dated 12/11/2006 3:35:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group,
In a message dated 12/11/2006 3:17:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group,
If the universe is computationallu simulable, then any universal
Turing machine will do for a higher hand. In which case, the
information needed is simply the shortest possible program for
simulating the universe, the length of which by definition is the
information content of the universe.
Hi Mark,
Could you tell us about some of the books that you have read on the
subject and about some of your basic ideas?
Stephen
Hi Stephen all,
I have read mostly popular science books like Hawking's ABHoT,
Einstein's Relativity, Feynmann's QED, Johnson's A Shortcut Through
Time
16 matches
Mail list logo
