On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 03:51:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 15-mai-06, à 13:59, Russell Standish a écrit : > > >> OK, why not taking that difference [description/computation] into > >> account. I think it is a > >> crucial point. > > > > I do :). However, its makes no difference as far as I can tell to the > > Occam's razor issue. > > > You do? See below. > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >>> given a reference Turing machine U. This appears > >>> to be a 3rd person description, but it need not be so. > >> > >> > >> I am not sure I understand. > >> > > > > Do you mean you don't think it is a 3rd person description, or do you > > mean you don't think it can be anything else? > > > > I think it is a third person description. >
That's what I suspect most people think. My point is that it needn't be, and it is in fact inherently first person. I make this point in many different papers, as well as my book. In the fairness of scientific discussion, I am willing to be shown wrong, of course :) > > > > The details, of course are in my paper "Why Occams Razor". To > > summarise, an observer induces a map O(x) from the space of > > descriptions, which is equivalent AFAIK to the output of your UD, > > > ? The UD has neither inputs nor outputs. (like any "universe" or > "everything", note) > > Perhaps I'm being a little casual in my terminology. What I'm referring to is UD*. > > > > to > > the space of meanings. > > > Which space is it? What do you mean (here) by "meanings"? An observer attaches a meaning to the data e observes. The set of all such meanings is semantic space or "meaning space". I believe this is necessarily a discrete set (but not necessarily finite). > If it is a > mathematical semantics then which one, if not, I don't understand. I > already ask you similar question after my first reading of your Occam). > > > > > > For any given meaning y, let omega(y,l) be the > > number of equivalent descriptions of length l mapping to y (for > > infinite length description we need the length l prefixes). So > > > > omega(y,l) = |{x: O(x)=y & len(x)=l}| > > > > Now P(y) = lim_{l->\infty} omega(y,l)/2^l is a probability > > distribution, related to the Solomonoff-Levin universal > > distribution. > > > > C(y)=-log_2 P(y) > > > > is a complexity measure related to Kolmogorov Complexity. > > > Note that this approach is non constructive (and thus cannot be first > person, at least as I use it and modelize it). I have already argued > that it can be refined through the notion of depth (a la Bennett), > which takes a notion of "long" computation into account; but it is > still incomplete relatively to the first person indeterminacy problem > (pertaining on the set of *all* (relative) computations, and not at all > on the set of descriptions). > The non-constructibility is a problem here, given the goal of deducing > physical laws or principles "without physics". > And now I don't understand you. Why does constructibility, or otherwise have anything to do with the 1/3 person distinction? > > If you have succeed in eliminating all the "many person pov" - white > rabbits, then publish! Well, I have! One thing you can't accuse me of is not publishing my ideas. > > Frankly it seems to me you don't really address the first person issue > (and thus the mind/body issue). Yes - you've said that before, and its a point I've never understood. > For example, what is your theory of > mind? In particular, do you say yes to the comp doctor? Pretty much everything thing I've done summarises the theory of the mind by the function O(x). It maps descriptions (aka bitstrings) to meaning. I do make use of a robustness property, which essentially is that O^{-1}(y) is not of measure zero, but that is about it. In particular, none of my results depend on whether I would say yes to the comp doctor or not. > I think that eventually, we have to limit ourself to the discourses > that a self-referentially correct machine (or entity, or growing > entities of such lobian kind) can have about herself and her > possibilities. And I think you could be right, or even approximately right. At this stage, we need to explore. > > I am not saying your argument is wrong, just that is incomplete (and > unclear, but this could be my incompetence). > > Bruno > Well, of course it is incomplete if you're looking for a TOE. For the White Rabbit issue, the argument is quite simple. I have conceived of the White Rabbit problem in a certain way: the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the (non-)failure of induction. It certainly appears to me that the argument addresses this conclusively, from a first person point of view, however, there is always room for doubt that I have overlooked some nuance. I am willing to concede that there is possibly more to the WR problem, but I have yet to see it expressed in a manner I can understand :). Where I suspect most people might come unstuck is justifying why formula (1) from "On Complexity and Emergence" should be called complexity. The reason comes down its connection with Kolmogorov complexity - it is the obvious generalisation of complexity to 1st person and non-computationalist scenarios. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---