Kory:
>"...It's not that I don't believe in life"<
In WHAT??? Some people believe in god, some in numbers, none can
reasonably identify the target of their belief. How about you?
*
>"... I just that I think that molecules, bits,
patterns, whatever, are the things that play the role ..."<
The
On Nov 20, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote:
>> What is your definition of "mathematicalism" here?
>
>
> Strong definition: the big "everything" is a mathematical object.
> (But perhaps this is asking too much. The whole of math is already not
Hi Kory,
On 20 Nov 2008, at 10:13, Kory Heath wrote:
> I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on
> the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond
> to.
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath w
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks fo your clarification Anna. We will have the opportunity to
> come back on some nuances later. I basically agree with your solution,
> but I would have to explain the entire MGA + a part of its
> arithmetical tran
Thanks fo your clarification Anna. We will have the opportunity to
come back on some nuances later. I basically agree with your solution,
but I would have to explain the entire MGA + a part of its
arithmetical translation to be completely accurate commenting your, a
bit to prematurely tech
Hi Bruno,
I should probably let this thread die so that we can concentrate on
the MGA thread. But there are a few more things I wanted to respond to.
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote:
>> In the meantime, I at least want to say that
> Well if you take any finite portion of the universe then you have a
> finite amount of matter, this finite amount of matter has a finite set
> of possible permutations hence for a given block of universes of the
> same size there is only a finite set of possible arrangement of the
> matter in th
Hi,
2008/11/20 A. Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> No. The tape isn't a standard Turing tape because it's
>>> infinitely long. :)
>>
>> ?
>
> You're presuming the Universe contains finite data. Most cosmological
> evidence suggests that the Universe is flat and unbounded, which implies it
> wou
>> No. The tape isn't a standard Turing tape because it's
>> infinitely long. :)
>
> ?
You're presuming the Universe contains finite data. Most cosmological
evidence suggests that the Universe is flat and unbounded, which implies it
would be infinite in size. If space is not quantized (whic
Le 18-nov.-08, à 18:31, A. Wolf a écrit :
>
>> i am not sure I understand. Are you thinking that the hero is in its
>> own simulation?
>
> No. The tape isn't a standard Turing tape because it's infinitely
> long. :)
?
> That's why someone can't perform the calculation stepwise in the way
> i am not sure I understand. Are you thinking that the hero is in its
> own simulation?
No. The tape isn't a standard Turing tape because it's infinitely long. :)
That's why someone can't perform the calculation stepwise in the way that it
is described, even given infinite time.
Anna
--~-
On 18 Nov 2008, at 14:14, Kory Heath wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> This question is addressed mainly to Jason and Kory, who, it seems
>> to me, have still a little problem with step 7, if I may say,
>
> As far as I know, I understand and accept your step 7, b
On 18 Nov 2008, at 15:03, A. Wolf wrote:
>
> Even if you could discretize the universe to a countable submodel
> (and I'm
> not certain you can), each step of the computation would take
> forever (each
> step is ordered by omega the way the stones are laid out). An
> infinite
> amount of
Telmo,
On 18 Nov 2008, at 12:40, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> Our hero first solves physics and then programs a physical simulator
> to create a universe. You would argue that what he needed was to
> execute a universal dovetailer and physics would appear as a
> consequence (to the inhabitants of sa
Even if you could discretize the universe to a countable submodel (and I'm
not certain you can), each step of the computation would take forever (each
step is ordered by omega the way the stones are laid out). An infinite
amount of time bounded by discrete steps isn't enough time to complete m
On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> This question is addressed mainly to Jason and Kory, who, it seems
> to me, have still a little problem with step 7, if I may say,
As far as I know, I understand and accept your step 7, but clearly
something I've said makes you think other
Bruno,
Our hero first solves physics and then programs a physical simulator
to create a universe. You would argue that what he needed was to
execute a universal dovetailer and physics would appear as a
consequence (to the inhabitants of said universe(s)). Right?
Cheers,
Telmo Menezes.
On Tue, N
17 matches
Mail list logo
