Have a look at Tegmark's 'does the universe inf fact contain almost no
information' and Juergen Schmidhuber's paper, which is along similar lines.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Maloney [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 11:05 AM
> To: everything-list
> Sub
> Dr. Russell Standish wrote:
>
> One of the biggest problems is that in Relativity, there is no well
> defined concept of "now" - the locus of contemporary events depends on
> one's frame of reference.
>
> You've probably seen where Tegmark maps spatial and temporal dimensions
> to consider whi
Alastair Malcolm wrote:
>
> Christopher,
>
> I have found your recent posts to everything-list very interesting, and the
> ideas presented overlap to a degree with my own, but there is one question
> that I have, if I may, which I mention below.
>
> From: Christopher Maloney <[EMAIL PROTECT
All good points, but if you look at the bigger picture, the universe is all
the same stuff, all numbers. The concept of 'my' is meaningless (or can you
show otherwise?), so caring about 'my measure' is foolish. Yes, our genes
would care, if they could care. So what?
> -Original Message-
>
Should one make decisions based on objective or subjective consequences of
his actions? By objective, I mean one should consider how one's actions
affect the external world, and by subjective I mean one should only
consider one's future subjective experiences. This is very much related to
the quan
> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9906015
I just read this paper and it seems to have a pretty big problem. On page 5
it says:
"For convenience, let us consider games in which the measured value of X^
is numerically equal to the utility of the payoff, measured on some
suitable utility scale.
6 matches
Mail list logo
