How would they ever know that I wonder?
"Well let's see. I'm conscious and I'm not fallible. Therefore" ;-)
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I'm wondering whether the following demonstrates that a computer that can
only generate "thoughts" which are sentences derivable from some
underlying
axioms
I agree with you. Actually you can use the second recursion theorem
of Kleene to collapse all the orders. This is easier in an untyped
programming language like (pure) LISP than in a typed language,
although some typed language have a primitive for handling untyped
self-reference, like the primitiv
Dear Stephen,
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Hal, and Friends,
Were and when is the consideration of the "physical resources" required
for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
"first cause" question?
This is a good question for a phys
Dear Bruno,
Interleaving.
- Original Message -
From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
> Dear Stephen,
>
> At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> >Dear Hal, and Fri
Let me interleave - although I don't like to continue an exchange beyond 3:
from the 4th arguments go astray and fall into 'in other words' rather than
saying sthg. I will use [JM]: insert lines.
- Original Message -
From: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, Jan
> > This would appear to assume that self-awareness equates to being human
(as
> > in homo sapien?); I don't see that as the being the case. I certainly
> don't
> > believe the infinite time/memory device is required; maybe a Linux
Beowulf
> > cluster running on some g5s?
> [JM]: We did not settle
At 13:19 19/01/04 -0500, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>Where and when is the consideration of the "physical resources" required
>for the computation going to obtain? Is my question equivalent to the old
>"first cause" question?
Anything "physical" is by definition within a universe (by my definition,
Dear Hal,
"A theorem doesn't weigh anything, and neither does a computation."
Nice try but that is a very smelly Red Herring. Even Conway's Life can
not exist, even in the abstract sense, without some association with the
possibility of "being implemented" and it is this "Implementation"
> The fact that an Algorithm is "independent of any particular
> implementation" is not reducible to the idea that Algorithms (or Numbers,
or
> White Rabbits, etc.) can exist without some "REAL" resources being used in
> their implementation (and maybe some kind of "thermodynamics").
>
To par
The following thought experiment might provoke some intuitions on this
question..
Imagine a Life universe that contains, among other things, two SASes
talking to each other (and showing each other pictures, and in general
having a very lucid, conscious, conversation.) Imagine that instead of
Dear CMR,
- Original Message -
From: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
> [SPK previous]
> > The fact that an Algorithm is "independent of any particular
> > implementation" is not reducib
Pete Carlton writes:
> Imagine a Life universe that contains, among other things, two SASes
> talking to each other (and showing each other pictures, and in general
> having a very lucid, conscious, conversation.) Imagine that instead of
> being implemented on a computer, it's implemented by a
Greetings Stephen,
>BTW, have you ever read about the Maxwell Demon?
Being partial to the information physical view; not only have I read it, I
also account for it by viewing a system's information as physical.
So by inference should then I be viewing the mapping of the intra and extra
universal
Greetings Pete,
> If not, then can you say what it is about the active process of
> flipping or laying down that "counts" as computation but does not count
> when the stack is a static block?
>
I suppose I'm ultimately in the "hard" info physics camp, in that the
pattern's the thing; given the 2d
CMR writes:
> Then question then becomes, I suppose, if in fact our universe is a digital
> one (if not strictly a CA) havng self-consistent emergent physics, then
> might it not follow that it is "implemented" (run?) via some extra-universal
> physical processes that only indirectly correspond to
Dear CMR,
- Original Message -
From: "CMR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable?
> Greetings Stephen,
>
> >BTW, have you ever read about the Maxwell Demon?
>
> Being partial to the information physica
Dear Hal,
Consider the last two paragraphs from one of Stephen Wolfram's papers:
http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html
***
"Quantum and statistical mechanics involve sums over possibly infinite sets
of configurations in systems. To derive f
Even if we utilize a language with reflection capability, do we still
have an underlying problem with different levels of "mathematical truth"
as indicated by the question of whether 3+4 equals 7?
When an expression contains a sub-expression, don't we expect to be able
to replace that sub-expressi
Does this help...
Let f(x) be a predicate on positive integer x.
Let pn = |{ x <= n | f(x) }| / n
(ie the fraction of the first n positive integers that satisfy the
predicate)
I propose that we define the probability of f as P(f) = p if pn
converges to p.
This allows us to say the probabilit
I am writing my high school senior project term paper on defending ethical and
existential nihilism based on quantum and multiverse theory. I was looking for any
comments on the subject. Here I place my outline for said paper:
---
A Scientifi
At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote:
However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to
be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random
program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that
you created the first program above is 1/2^100, and fo
At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
This allows us to say the probability that an integer is even is 0.5, or
the probability that an integer is a perfect square is 0.
But can't you use this same logic to show that the cardinality of the even
integers is half that of the cardinality of the tot
Kory Heath wrote:
At 1/19/04, Hal Finney wrote:
However, here is an alternate formulation of my argument which seems to
be roughly equivalent and which avoids this objection: create a random
program tape by flipping a coin for each bit. Now the probability that
you created the first program above
Sorry. Can't help myself : Is there any point in completing that term
paper really?
On a few points.
I don't believe in the point of view of "nihilism because everything
will happen in the multiverse, anyway, regardless of what I do"..
My reasons are a little vague, but here's a stab at it:
1.
Your conclusion that "there is no scientific justification for morals of any
sort, only that in the Darwinistic sense" depends on the definition of
"scientific." Without "morals" an argument could be made that mankind would
not exist - it would have self-destructed. Perhaps that is "scientific
ju
Kory said...
>
> At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
> >This allows us to say the probability that an integer is even is 0.5,
or
> >the probability that an integer is a perfect square is 0.
>
> But can't you use this same logic to show that the cardinality of the
even
> integers is half tha
Calm, Steve, calm. :-) Remember my comment the
other evening: It is the appropriate moment in
human thought to change the definitions of
'objective' and 'subjective'.
Implementation is the 'subjective'. Relationship
need not be. In fact, relationship is necessarily
-intangible-, but -is- the
> Think of it this way, what is the cardinality of the equivalence class
> of representations R of, say, a 1972 Jaguar XKE, varying over *all
possible
> languages* and *symbol systems*? I think it is at least equal to the
Reals.
> Is this correct? If R has more than one member, how can we cohe
> And what does it say about the physical properties which are necessary
> for computation? We have energy; Life has "blinkiness" (the degree to
> which cells are blinking on and off within a structure); neither property
> has a good analog in the other universe. Does the "real" universe win,
>
29 matches
Mail list logo