Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 3/7/07, *Charles D Hixson* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With so many imponderables, the most reasonable thing to do is to just
ignore the possibility, and, after all, that may well be what is
desired
by the simulation.
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is so if there is a real physical world as distinct from the
mathematical plenitude.
Do you have any particular reason(s) for believing in a mathematical
plenitude? If so, I would much appreciate an explanation of these
reasons or
On 3/8/07, Jeff Medina [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/7/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is so if there is a real physical world as distinct from the
mathematical plenitude.
Do you have any particular reason(s) for believing in a mathematical
plenitude? If so, I would
This discussion on whether the universe exists is interesting, but I think we
should be asking a different question: why do we believe that the universe
exists? Or more accurately, why do we act as if we believe that the universe
exists?
I said earlier that humans believe that the universe is
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Is it possible to program to program any autonomous agent
that responds to reinforcement learning (a reward/penalty signal) that does
not act as though its environment were real? How would one test for this
belief?
Exactly.
Of course an agent could certainly claim that
John Ku wrote:
I think I am conceiving of the dialectic in a different way from the
way you are imagining it. What I think Bostrom and others are doing is
arguing that if the world is as our empirical science says it is,
then the anthropic principle actually yields the prediction that we
are
On 3/3/07, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Jef Allbright [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt Mahoney wrote:
Is it possible to program to program any autonomous agent
that responds to reinforcement learning (a reward/penalty signal) that
does
not act as though its environment were
On 3/2/07, Mitchell Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I actually think there is reason to think we are not living in a computer
simulation. From what I've read, inflationary cosmology seems to be very
well supported.
[...]
Once you admit that you (and your whole
On Fri, Mar 02, 2007 at 07:30:42PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why that last phrase? There is a great elegance and simplicity in the
idea that all mathematical structures exist necessarily, with the
anthropic principle selecting out those structures with observers.
How is that
Induction, deduction, logic, inference, reasoning, and all the like are a
bunch of conflicting and overlapping terms and definitions trying to
describe two things, 1) empirical logic which is converging, and 2) rational
logic which is diverging. Both of which must sense, collect, question,
Hi everyone! I just joined this discussion list, which looks great by the
way. I'm a philosopher by trade (mostly working on what we mean by things
like 'reasons', 'ought's and 'values'), but I read a lot of science,
including singularity stuff, in my spare time.
I actually think there is reason
From: John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I actually think there is reason to think we are not living in a computer
simulation. From what I've read, inflationary cosmology seems to be very
well supported.
[...]
Once you admit that you (and your whole species/civilization, assuming that
it was real)
12 matches
Mail list logo
