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 f
Le 27-sept.-07, à 12:43, Russell Standish a écrit :
>
> 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) conce
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 i
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 U
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
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 c
Bruno Marchal skrev:
Le 19-sept.-07, à 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"
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 n
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,
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
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
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. I
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 s
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 S
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,
b
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 me
[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)
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 diffic
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
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 notwith
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
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
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 No
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 Hilber
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 discussi
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 li
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 imagin
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
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
> thi
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 useles
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 argument
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 "du
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 a
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 E
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
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
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
> > Everythin
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
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 transit
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 (
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
the only
possible choice is that "nothing" and "something"
are one and the same
thing.
Thanks.
Roger
--- Youness Ayaita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No(-)Justification Justifies The Ever
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.
Whe
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 tak
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-justi
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 n
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 Goo
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 tha
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 bott
No(-)Justification Justifies The Everything Ensemble
Youness Ayaita
In this message, I present my "no-justification" of the hypothesis
that everything exists. The no-justification argues that no
justification at all is needed to accept the hypothesis. This provides
a new and very
50 matches
Mail list logo