I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, but it wouldn't surprise me if
the Turing subset of my world has additional constraints - namely the
worlds seen by observers whose O(x)'s are prefix machines, not just maps.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 05:56:50PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 10-juin-05, ?
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:59:16PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
Yes, if you think there is a concrete reality in which everything exists
(your question of where does the observer live?), then the AP is a
tautology.
What I meant by where does
Le 10-juin-05, à 14:59, Patrick Leahy a écrit :
Russell Standish:
If the AP applies to the Sims Mark VII, then their reality will be a
description containing a body corresponding to their intelligences.
They will not be aware of the PC that their description is being
generated on. We, who
On Thu, Jun 09, 2005 at 01:55:32AM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
[Russell Standish wrote]:
The AP is a statement that observed reality must be consistent with
the observer being part of that reality.
Famously, this can be interpreted as either a trivial tautology (Brandon
Carter's
Russell Standish writes:
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:51:36PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
In particular, if an observer attaches sequences of meanings to sequences
of prefixes of one of these strings, then it seems that he must have a
domain which does allow some inputs to be prefixes of others.
[Russell Standish wrote]:
The AP is a statement that observed reality must be consistent with
the observer being part of that reality.
Famously, this can be interpreted as either a trivial tautology (Brandon
Carter's original intention, I think), or an almost-obviously false
principle of
If we're allowing ourselves a little informality, then I'd appeal to
the notion of observer moment. Within any observer moment, a finite
number of bits of the bitstrings has been read, and processed by the
observer. Since only a finite number of bits have been processed to
determine the meaning of
Le 06-juin-05, à 22:51, Hal Finney a écrit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the Why Occam discussion so far. I really don't understand
what it means to explain appearances rather than reality.
Well this I understand. I would even argue that
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the Why Occam discussion so far. I really don't understand
what it means to explain appearances rather
Le 07-juin-05, à 09:20, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
regard to the Why Occam discussion so far. I really don't understand
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
?
In LaTeX, this equation is
\frac {d\psi}{d t}={\cal H}(\psi)
It supposes time, but not space (TIME postulate).
Le 07-juin-05, à 12:28, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
?
In LaTeX, this equation is
\frac {d\psi}{d t}={\cal H}(\psi)
It
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
Hal dealt with this one already, I notice. 2^\aleph_0 = c. \aleph_1 is
something else entirely.
d'oh!
snip
Now an observer will expect to find a SAS in one of the descriptions
as a corrolory of the anthropic principle, which is explicitly
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:57:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 07-juin-05, ? 12:28, Russell Standish a ?crit :
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:37:10AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
?
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 10:15:03PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
Now an observer will expect to find a SAS in one of the descriptions
as a corrolory of the anthropic principle, which is explicitly stated
as one of the assumptions in this work. I make no bones about this - I
consider the
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
I am beginning to regret calling the all descriptions ensemble with
uniform measure a Schmidhuber ensemble. I think what I meant was that
it could be generated by a standard dovetailer algorithm, running for
2^\aleph_0 timesteps.
It can't!
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:06:06PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Russell Standish wrote:
I am beginning to regret calling the all descriptions ensemble with
uniform measure a Schmidhuber ensemble. I think what I meant was that
it could be generated by a standard
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 01:51:36PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Another area I had trouble with in Russell's answer was the concept of
a prefix map. I understand that a prefix map is defined as a mapping
whose domain is finite bit strings such that none of them are a prefix
of any other. But
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 04:22:07PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Russell Standish recently mentioned his paper Why Occam's Razor which
can be found at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/ . Among
other things he aims to derive quantum mechanics from a Schmidhuber type
ensemble. I have
19 matches
Mail list logo
