I wanted to add a few points to my earlier posting about how to derive
OM measure in a Schmidhuberian multiverse model.
The method is basically to take all the universes where the OM appears
and to sum up the contribution they make to the OM measure. However,
the key idea is that this
Jonathan Colvin writes:
I presume the answer is that rather than look at physical size/weight of our
bodies, one must try to calculate the proportion of the universe's
information content devoted to that part of our beings essential to being an
observer (probably something to do with the
Hal Finney wrote:
I presume the answer is that rather than look at physical
size/weight
of our bodies, one must try to calculate the proportion of the
universe's information content devoted to that part of our beings
essential to being an observer (probably something to do
with the
Jonathan Colvin writes, regarding the Doomsday argument:
There's a simple answer to that one. Presumably, a million years from now in
the Galactic Empire, the Doomsday argument is no longer controversial, and
it will not be a topic for debate. The fact that we are all debating the
Doomsday
Le 14-juin-05, à 00:35, George Levy a écrit :
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's theorem:
~Bf - ~B(~Bf),
which is equivalent to B(Bf - f) - Bf,
Just a little aside a la Descartes + Godel: (assume that think and
believe are synonymous and
Hi Brent,
You didn't answer my last post where I explain that Bp is different
from Bp p.
I hope you were not too much disturbed by my teacher's tone (which
can be enervating I imagine). Or is it because you don't recognize the
modal form of Godel's theorem:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's theorem:
~Bf - ~B(~Bf),
which is equivalent to B(Bf - f) - Bf,
Just a little aside a la Descartes + Godel: (assume that think and
believe are synonymous and that f = you are)
B(Bf - f) - Bf can be
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 02:43 AM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 06:41 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 10
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
Le 09-juin-05, à 23:00, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
Bruno wrote:
I don't believe in observers, if by observer one means to assign
special ontological status to mental states over any other
arrangement
of matter.
I don't believe in matters, if by matters one means to
assign special
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 02:23 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
-Original Message-
From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
Le 09-juin-05, à 01:19, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
I don't believe in observers, if by observer one means to assign
special
ontological status to mental states over any other arrangement of
matter.
I don't believe in matters, if by matters one means to assign special
ontological status
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Colvin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 5:51 AM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Hal Finney wrote:
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what
is an OM
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose, for
a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing
as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest there is no such thing as an
observer-moment. I'm happy with using the
Le 08-juin-05, à 07:51, Jonathan Colvin a écrit :
Hal Finney wrote:
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what
is an OM.
We need a formal model and description of a particular OM.
Consider, for example, someone's brain when he is having a
particular experience. He is
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Hal Finney wrote:
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose, for
a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing
as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest there is no such thing as an
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I suppose,
for
a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think there is such a thing
as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest there is no such thing as
an
observer-moment. I'm happy with using the
defines the observer.
Specifying the initial state of the personal universes thus suffices.
Saibal
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Leahy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 01:04 PM
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment
Paddy Leahy wrote:
[quoting Hal Finney]
Here's how I attempted to define observer moment a few years ago:
Observer - A subsystem of the multiverse with qualities sufficiently
similar to those which are common among human beings that we consider
it meaningful that we might have been or might be
-Original Message-
From: Hal Finney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 6:11 PM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Brent Meeker writes:
But the problem I see is that we don't know with certainity the
present
Hal Finney wrote:
Jonathan Colvin writes:
There's a question begging to be asked, which is (predictably I
suppose, for a qualia-denyer such as myself), what makes you think
there is such a thing as an essence of an experience? I'd suggest
there is no such thing as an observer-moment. I'm
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 12:36 PM
To: Brent Meeker
Cc: EverythingList list
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 06-juin-05, à 01:40, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What do you take
Le 07-juin-05, à 00:31, Brent Meeker a écrit :
BM:
For knowability I take the S4 axioms and rules:
1) axioms:
all classical tautologies>
BX -> X
BX -> BBX
B(X->Y) -> (BX -> BY)
2) Rule:
X X -> Y X
--- - (Modus ponens, necessitation)
YBX
But in
Hal Finney wrote:
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what
is an OM.
We need a formal model and description of a particular OM.
Consider, for example, someone's brain when he is having a
particular experience. He is eating chocolate ice cream while
listening to
Hi Brent,
Le 05-juin-05, à 13:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:02 AM
To: Hal Finney
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 05-juin-05, à
Le 05-juin-05, à 17:30, Stephen Paul King a écrit :
FAR AWAY IN THE HEAVENLY ABODE OF THE GREAT GOD INDRA, THERE IS A
WONDERFUL NET WHICH HAS BEEN HUNG BY SOME CUNNING ARTIFICER IN SUCH A
MANNER THAT IT STRETCHES OUT INDEFINITELY IN ALL DIRECTIONS. IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXTRAVAGANT TASTES
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
Hal Finney writes:
There are a few unintuitive consequences, though, such as that large
instantiations of OMs will have more measure than small ones, and likewise
slow ones will have more measure than fast ones. This is because in each
case the interpretation
Le 06-juin-05, à 01:40, Brent Meeker a écrit :
What do you take to be the standard definition of knows? Is it X
knows Y
iff X believes Y is true and Y is true?
That's the one by Theaetetus.
Or do you include Gettier's
amendment, X knows Y iff X believes Y is true and Y is true and
There
Hal Finney writes:
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
Hal Finney writes:
There are a few unintuitive consequences, though, such as that large
instantiations of OMs will have more measure than small ones, and
likewise
slow ones will have more measure than fast ones. This is because in
each
case
Johnathan Corgan writes:
As I'm sure many on the list are familiar, David Brin's Kiln People is
an interesting science fiction treatment of similar issues.
It is an interesting story which helps to make some of our philosophical
thought experiments more concrete. Making copies, destroying
Le 05-juin-05, à 05:53, Hal Finney a écrit :
Lee Corbin writes:
But in general, what do observer-moments explain? Or what does the
hypothesis concerning them explain? I just don't get a good feel
that there are any higher level phenomena which might be reduced
to observer-moments (I am still
- Original Message -
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 08:10 PM
Subject: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
To apply Wei's method, first we need to get serious about what is an OM.
We need a formal model and
Dear Hal and Bruno,
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 3:02 AM
Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Le 05-juin-05, à 05:53, Hal Finney a écrit
Bruno writes
All right. So you both (Hal Finney and Lee Corbin) with the first axiom
Arghh! My new revelation says that axioms are fine if
you are doing math. But some of us are doing something
here that is entirely separate: philosophy. I love math;
it is my hobby. But axioms and all that
OOPS! I meant to post it to the list. I'll now just post this.
Brent
-Original Message-
From: Lee Corbin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 4:52 PM
To: Brent Meeker
Subject: (offlist) RE: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
Hi Brent,
Of course science
Hal Finney writes:
There are a few unintuitive consequences, though, such as that large
instantiations of OMs will have more measure than small ones, and likewise
slow ones will have more measure than fast ones. This is because in each
case the interpretation program can be smaller if it is
Hal Finney has provided some intriguing notions and possibly
some very useful explanations. But I would like help in clarifying
even the first several paragraphs, in order to maximize my
investment in the remainder.
But first a few comments; these may be premature, but if so,
the comments should
Lee Corbin writes:
But in general, what do observer-moments explain? Or what does the
hypothesis concerning them explain? I just don't get a good feel
that there are any higher level phenomena which might be reduced
to observer-moments (I am still very skeptical that all of physics
or math
39 matches
Mail list logo
