A brief heads up that my paper "Why Occam's Razor" will appear in the
June issue of Foundations of Physics Letters. The full reference is:
Standish, R.K. (2004) ``Why Occam's Razor'' Foundations of Physics
Letters, 17, 255-266.
Cheers
-
Dear CMR,
I honestly do not see where Jim's comments add anything cogent to the
discussion that was not covered in the Wolfram's article that I referenced
previously. :_( But I do appreciate that you brought it to my attention.
Please forward this post to Jim.
What I am trying to figure ou
> The problem is that there is a large class of physical systems that
are
> not "computable" by TMs, i.e., they are "intractable". Did you read the
> Wolfram quote that I included in one of my posts? Please read the entire
> article found here:
> Another way of thinking of this is to conc
> The problem is that there is a large class of physical systems that
are
> not "computable" by TMs, i.e., they are "intractable". Did you read the
> Wolfram quote that I included in one of my posts? Please read the entire
> article found here:
> Another way of thinking of this is to concid
Dear Kory,
Interleaving below.
- Original Message -
From: "Kory Heath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Is the universe computable
> At 1/24/04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > I should respond to Kory's ME == PE ide
Wei Dai wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 03:41:55AM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Do you think that by choosing a
different measure, you could change the actual first-person probabilities of
different experiences? Or do you reject the idea of continuity of
consciousness and "first-p
Jumping in, in the middle, the following is quite accurate,
with one subtle modification [evil] -> {other} :
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I could be the most rational
> of people and still consistently hold the evil views I have
> described (for the sake of ar
At 1/24/04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
I should respond to Kory's ME == PE idea. In PE we find such things as
"thermodynamic entropy" and "temporality". If we are to take Kory's idea
(that Mathspace doesn't require resources) seriously, ME does not. This
seems a direct contradiction!
Perhaps
Yes, this is exactly what I mean. I could be the most rational of people and
still consistently hold the evil views I have described (for the sake of
argument, of course!), because good and evil. You cannot "prove" that a
moral axiom is correct or incorrect, nor can you assume that it will be
s
9 matches
Mail list logo
