Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-30 Thread Russell Standish
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 06:56:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 27-sept.-07, à 12:43, Russell Standish a écrit : It may well be that Darwinism is some marriage of information theory with a multiverse idea, but it is not obvious how this works. I'd take it as a fairly fundamental

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-27 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 05:24:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Of course. But I also put Darwinian evolution up there with that (variation/selection is a powerful theory). This to vague for me. I have no (big) conceptual problem with Darwinian Evolution, but this is not

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-26 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 21-sept.-07, à 02:30, Russell Standish a écrit : I do take the reversal, but not as granted. It is essentially a consequence of any ensemble theory of everything with a 1-3 distinction. This is most clearly enunciated from within a computationalist position, which is why I think your UDA

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-20 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 19-sept.-07, à 11:56, Russell Standish a écrit : On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field, but, as you have already acknowledge, there is some lack in rigor in it, and it is not even clear if

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-20 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 05:05:10PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 19-sept.-07, à 11:56, Russell Standish a écrit : On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field, but, as you have already

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-19 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 18 Sep., 16:23, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So without putting any extra-stcruture on the set of infinite strings, you could as well have taken as basic in your ontology the set of subset of N, written P(N). Now, such a set is not even nameable in any first order theory. In a

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-19 Thread marc . geddes
On Sep 19, 1:18 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Marc: The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are static elements of the power set. My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change - they can be the current state of a something on its path to

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-19 Thread marc . geddes
On Sep 19, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schmidhuber and me do agree on comp (100% agreement: we have the same hypothesis). And relatively to the comp hyp and the importance of the universal machine Schmidhuber and me are much closer than with Tegmark whi is just very

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-19 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 04:23:58PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field, but, as you have already acknowledge, there is some lack in rigor in it, and it is not even clear if eventually you are of the ASSA type or RSSA type, or

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 19-sept.-07, à 09:59, Youness Ayaita wrote (in two posts): You mentioned the ASSA. Yesterday, motivdated by your hint, I have read about the ASSA/RSSA debate that is said to have divided the list into two camps. Since I have trouble with the reasoning I read, I will probably send a new

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-19 Thread Torgny Tholerus
Bruno Marchal skrev: Le 19-sept.-07, 09:59, Youness Ayaita wrote (in two posts): Probably, we won't find the set of natural numbers within this universe, the number of identical particles (as far as we can talk about that) of any kind is finite. Not in all "models"

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-18 Thread Youness Ayaita
Many thanks! I'll give my current attitudes to your hints: Bruno: You mentioned the ASSA. Yesterday, motivdated by your hint, I have read about the ASSA/RSSA debate that is said to have divided the list into two camps. Since I have trouble with the reasoning I read, I will probably send a new

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-sept.-07, à 14:22, Russell Standish a écrit : Sorry my fingers are slipping. Machines (computable functions) are a type of map, but not all maps are machines (or perhaps you prefer the word function to map). OK. You know I like your little book as an introduction to the field,

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Marc: The objects I use are divisions of the list - such divisions are static elements of the power set. My objects have nothing to do with programing and do not change - they can be the current state of a something on its path to completion. Hal At 12:13 AM 9/18/2007, you wrote: On

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-18 Thread Hal Ruhl
I do see one mistake I made. A Nothing is incomplete since it can not resolve any question but there is one it must resolve - that of its own duration. So it is unstable - it eventually decays [Big Bang] into a something that follows a path to completion by becoming an ever increasing sub

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Youness Ayaita
Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar ideas: List of all properties: The list of all possible properties objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least one object: A Nothing. A Nothing has at least one property - emptiness. The list is most

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit : On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification,

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
Just a further comment - Youness asked me about his properties idea. For me a property is something that belongs to the semantic level, not the syntactic one. It is something that distinguishes one subset of the ensemble from another. This later ends up being the results of projections in a

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:22, Youness Ayaita a écrit : Thank you for this remark, Hal. Indeed, you mentioned very similar ideas: List of all properties: The list of all possible properties objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least one object: A Nothing. A Nothing

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 17-sept.-07, à 08:51, Russell Standish a écrit : On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 03:13:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit : On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Russell Standish
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 12:36:51PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: It doesn't matter. The most interesting ones, however, have inverse images of non-zero measure. ie \forall n \in N, the set O^{-1}(n) = {x: O(x)=n} is of nonzero measure. I have no clue of what you are saying here.

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Youness: Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I am having difficultly adding yet another area of skill to my resume. This

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread marc . geddes
On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to a preimage x, we

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread marc . geddes
On Sep 18, 1:24 pm, Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Youness: Bruno has indeed recommended that I study in more detail the underlying mathematics that I may be appealing to. The response that I have made may be a bit self serving but at this point in my life I am having difficultly

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-17 Thread Brent Meeker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 13, 11:47 pm, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-16 Thread Hal Ruhl
Hi Youness: I have been posting models based on a list of properties as the fundamental for a few years. Hal Ruhl At 06:36 PM 9/13/2007, you wrote: On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Youness Ayaita wrote: This leads to the 2nd idea: We don't say that imaginable

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 14-sept.-07, à 01:02, Russell Standish a écrit : On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-14 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 14 Sep., 02:27, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In order to observe something about the world it will be necessary to observe relations, not just things with properties. If you allow countably many n-place relations, how will you encode them and how will you express that things

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread 1Z
On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But how is this transition made? At this point I

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread 1Z
On 12 Sep, 15:32, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For further research, it is then natural to identify imaginable things with their descriptions and to choose a simple alphabet for expressing the descriptions (e.g. strings of 0 and 1). How would you express A thing such that it

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get the Everything ensemble gratis! We don't need any postulate. But

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and Nothing (or should that be duelling) are really just motivators for getting at the ensemble, which turns out

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Youness Ayaita wrote: ... I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to a preimage x, we usually must know a formula first. But the

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread 1Z
On 13 Sep, 12:47, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13 Sep., 13:26, 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 12 Sep, 01:50, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble The amazing result of these simple considerations is that we get

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 13 Sep., 19:44, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Youness Ayaita wrote: ... I see two perfectly equivalent ways to define a property. This is somehow analogous to the mathematical definition of a function f: Of course, in order to practically decide which image f(x) is assigned to

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 03:04:34PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 13-sept.-07, à 00:48, Russell Standish a écrit : These sorts of discussions No-justification, Zero-information principle, All of mathematics and Hal Ruhl's dualling All and Nothing (or should that be duelling) are

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Youness Ayaita
I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless. So, I restrict my arguments

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-13 Thread Brent Meeker
Youness Ayaita wrote: I want to correct an error, the 1st idea in my last reply was erroneous, since in the set {0,1}^P(T) one will find descriptions that do not belong to any imaginable thing t in T. Thus, it would not be possible to use the total set and the whole idea is rather useless.

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. So where are the flying pigs? Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is. Ok. Why are they there and not here? I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that saying everything-exists is not only

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. So where are the flying pigs? Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is. Ok. Why are they there and not here? I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that saying everything-exists is not only no-justification it is

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
Le 12-sept.-07, à 13:08, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. So where are the flying pigs? Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is. Ok. Why are they there and not here? I'm sure that Stathis takes my point that

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Youness Ayaita
The two concerns, how to give a precise notion of the Everything, and how to deduce predictions from a chosen notion, lie at the very heart of our common efforts. Though, I did not go into them for the simple reason that I wanted to avoid discussions that are not directly linked to the topic.

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 07:32:32AM -0700, Youness Ayaita wrote: The two concerns, how to give a precise notion of the Everything, and how to deduce predictions from a chosen notion, lie at the very heart of our common efforts. Though, I did not go into them for the simple reason that I

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Roger Granet
If anyone is interested, I think some of the ideas at my website, www.geocities.com/roger846, apply to the current discussion. Briefly, the ideas entail: o Something exists because it is completely defined. That is, you know exactly what's contained in that thing. This applies to material

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-12 Thread Youness Ayaita
On 13 Sep., 00:48, Russell Standish wrote: It would be possible to construct an ensemble of purely finite strings (all strings of length googol bits, say). This wouldn't satisfy the zero information principle, or your no-justification, as you still have the finite string size to justify (why

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-11 Thread Brent Meeker
Youness Ayaita wrote: ... 3 No-justification The no-justification is the most satisfying justification for the Everything ensemble I know. I even think that a more satisfying justification is impossible in principle. So what is it about? The crucial point is to try to get to the bottom of

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 12/09/2007, Youness Ayaita [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The no-justification argues that it doesn't make sense to introduce 'existence' as a property, or expressed in another way, that it is not possible to meaningfully separate (imaginable) things that have the (hypothetic) property that

Re: No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble

2007-09-11 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On 12/09/2007, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK. So where are the flying pigs? Elsewhere. Existence is not a property, but position is. -- Stathis Papaioannou --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the