At 11/21/02, you wrote:
The clockwork
universe was shown to be wrong with Qunatum Mechanics. My gut feeling
is that the computer universe will also be shown to be wrong.
In my view there are two types of universes. Type 1 have internal rules of
state succession that are like computers - UD's
I agree as shown in a number of my posts that our universe is a CA [a 3d
face centered cubic grid of regions containing points that can not leave
that region is my best estimate so far], however one that is subject to an
external random oracle.
My model attempts to show that all universes are s
Refinements to the next stages of my model.
Proposal
A type #2 universe can look and evolve like our universe.
Justification: Stage 1
Designate the succession of states for universe "j" as Sj(i) and its
representative binary bit string as Uj(i) where "i" runs over some range of
integers from
Further improvememts.
Proposal:
The concepts of "Nothing" and "Everything" [1def] are not antagonistic,
but are actually synergistic and bootstrap "existence".
Justification:
AXIOMS:
Referring first to [1def] through [6def]:
1) A void consisting of the absence of factuals herein called th
I post this again to fix a small but important error and to sustain a
single thread title.
Proposition 8: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random.
Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5.
"Effect": I tried here to select a word that encompassed a
sufficiently wide range of influences so th
Proposition 8: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random.
Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5.
"Effect": I tried here to select a word that encompassed a sufficiently
wide range of influences so that in the end the Everything summed up to no
net information. One type of influence bet
The following is a new effort to present my model in a more traditional
way.
The basic idea is that the concepts of "nothing" and "everything" [i.e. a
maximum expression of "something"] are not totally antagonistic but are
actually synergistic.
DEFINITIONS:
1) Information: The potential to p
Dear Hal:
At 7/23/02, you wrote:
> The fact that this requires
>a relatively large program suggests that there is some substantial
>information content in the idea of running every program at once.
>
>Hal
With that I have no issue but my view is that the Everything is an ensemble
of counterfac
Dear Bruno:
I remain confident that there is a link between what we both are saying.
I think I must do my homework and closely study your argument. I hope
circumstances will allow this.
Yours
Hal
At 7/23/02, you wrote:
>At 22:11 -0700 22/07/2002, H J Ruhl wrote:
>>Is it po
Dear John:
I should be more careful when I describe my particular concept of the no
information system. It is actually a system that contains the two possible
expressions of no information the Nothing [no factuals of any sort] and the
Everything [the ensemble of all counterfactuals]. The exi
Dear Hal:
The idea that the Everything does not contain the UD appears self
contradictory.
That said the Everything as a system is generally thought of by some at
least as containing no information. [Otherwise where did this information
come from?] To sustain this requirement it must contai
Dear Bruno and Stephen:
Since I think I have just about finished explaining my model to myself
perhaps I can now do a better job of explaining it to others. So here goes.
1) The first thing I consider in need of basis is: There is a dynamic
within the system [The machine(s) change state].
I
Dear Bruno:
We have had a number of discussions both on the list and off and I missed
them while you were gone.
I basically think we are not worlds apart. I see a cellular automaton with
a large set [lookup table] of rules [sort of a machine if you will] that
lie below physics as we perceive
I am a licensed Professional Engineer.
BSEE The University of Illinois - Champaign/Urbana; 1966
MSEE Syracuse University; 1970
Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu
A member of Mensa
From 1966 to about 1987 I worked in the power semiconductor/power
electronics industry. I published some papers on the subj
In my model [a derivation I have based on forcing a "no information"
condition on the Everything] space in any evolving universe is a collection
of discrete points.
In a universe like ours these points can move about inside a given region
within which they are the only point. These regions ca
Dear Marcus:
I have some basic issues with your post.
The idea I use is that the basis of what we like to think of as our
universe and all other universes is "There is no information".
This is not really an assumption in the sense that you can not extract
anything from nothing as one usually
Explorations of the definitional basis of a universe and its effect on the
idea of decisions:
First examine a deterministic universe j such that [using notation from a
post by Matthieu Walraet]:
TjTj Tj
Sj(0)
Dear Matthieu:
At 4/19/02, you wrote:
>On 18 Apr 2002, at 20:03, H J Ruhl wrote:
>
> >
> > 5) I do not see universes as "splitting" by going to more than one next
> > state. This is not necessary to explain anything as far as I can see.
> >
> > 6)
As a quick contribution to the discussion:
1) What do we mean by the state of a universe?
I mean a fixed configuration.
2) What do we mean by the transition to the next state?
I mean a new fixed configuration is realized.
Successive fixed configurations are not joined by a continuum of
interv
Dear Wei:
I am interested because currently I find it impossible to support the
concept of a decision.
I see either a global computational arrival at a next state from the
current state or a transition to a next state that is at least partially
the result of information received from an exter
Dear Juergen:
I certainly currently agree with the idea that a particular universe is a
cellular automaton but one that is subject to true noise from an external
source. This does not preclude universes that are internally computational
rather they are required to balance those that are not [
The way my mailer works with messages posted to the list is that the reply
function sends the reply to the original poster's address not to the
list. I have to remember to actively correct this. If I forget then I
have to send the message to the list as well.
Hal
Dear Hal Finney:
That is interesting. But then I model things as: no predictor whether it
has worked before or not can be trusted to perform the same re any future
states.
Hal Ruhl
I agree at this point that the AP by itself has no predictive power. My
view is that a predictor that currently works in a given universe - say the
AP plus other stuff - can not be considered to continue to work. Any
universe is subject to true noise either because its rules allow it [type
2
At 3/26/02, you wrote:
>Normally we do not know the true conditional probability
>distribution p(next event | past). But assume we do know that
>p is in some set P of distributions.
As I posted earlier my issue with this is how does one know p is in P
unless one can compute p, i.e. check it?
W
Dear Alastair:
The infinite tape was just a way to show how your example actually has a
most interesting behavior under an extension to more dimensions and to
infinity. I believe you still miss what I am trying to say.
The nested Everythings are not and can not be exact copies of each other.
In an earlier post:
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m3532.html
I stated:
"Can type #1 universes {those that do not allow true noise} become type #2
universes {Those that do allow true noise}. They must be able to or again
there would be a selection."
The rational is as follows:
xx
random' sequence - but they should be the same hits!
>
>- Original Message -
>From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: 23 February 2002 03:05
>Subject: Re: Draft Philosophy Paper
>
>
> > Dear Alastair:
> >
> > I thi
This is just an effort to get the diagram to post reasonably on the list
archive.
Original single venue system [V(0)]:
V(0) x -1 - 0 --- + 10
My infinite venues system [V(0) to V(infinity)]
y
V(infinity) x -1 - 0
Dear Alastair:
I think you still fail to see my point. So here I try to draw a picture.
Original single venue system [V(0)]:
V(0) x -- -1 - 0
-- + 10
Take a random sample into the line.
The target size between x = -
Dear Alastair:
An clarification of my analysis of your -1 to + 10 example:
That is your model and it is one dimensional [call it x] that is it has one
venue.
Now add a dimension call it y that is infinite and perpendicular to your
example's x. This is an infinite number of venues. Add the y
Dear Russell:
you wrote:
"Without the AP, the Everything is indeed devoid of any
structure whatsoever."
I believe it is incorrect to attribute any fixed condition to the
Everything. This includes its structure. The Everything to be
informationless - that is absent any selection - would need
At 2/21/02, you wrote:
>If you are saying that it is the uncountability itself of copies that
>imparts indeterminacy, or changes the preponderancy, then effectively you
>are also saying that random selections from all the reals between -1 and +10
>do not converge towards a ratio of 10:1 for positi
Dear Russell:
As to any surprise that we are in the universe we are in I see none. It is
just chance.
My previous post did not go into the part of my approach as to why a
universe should evolve. What drives this dynamic inside an Everything?
The process I have currently set up for this happ
Dear Alastair:
I think you still miss the thrust of my comment.
As directly as I can say it:
The Everything is the ensemble of all counterfactuals.
The counterfactuals cancel out resulting in no information in the Everything.
The Everything and the Nothing are cancelling counterfactuals and thu
Everything.
Hal
At 2/19/02, you wrote:
>The intended implication is that the minimally represented versions of
>universes will predominate for all possible values of m (above n+d). Sorry
>if that wasn't clear.
>
>- Original Message -
>From: H J Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Dear Alastair:
In the appendix of your paper if we call m logical units a venue why do you
have just one such venue?
If there are an infinite number of venues of strength m in the Everything
then any sub m sets in m appear an infinite number of times in the Everything.
Hal
Dear Alastair:
I will read your paper, but it seems to me that the "no information"
approach to formulating an Everything precludes selection. Selection
assigns a property to a subset of the ensemble that the other members do
not share. This destroys the ensemble.
Prevalence being a propert
I see no reason why any difficulty along this line arises in the first place.
In my model all evolving universes have rules of state succession that
allow some degree of true noise entering the universe at each transition.
In this venue there would be an infinite number of universes that have
At 2/3/02, you wrote:
>It has been conventional wisdom that the fundamental laws of physics are
>not invariant under parity. Now, the computational complexity of a model
>that lacks mirror symmetry is much larger than a similar mirror symmetric
>model. It would thus be very strange if Nature is
If anyone is interested a draft [which changes from time to time] of my
model is at a new URL:
http://home.mindspring.com/~hjr2/model01.html
Hal
The reason I currently do not see "observer" or "observation" as necessary
concepts is because there are no isolated systems within a
universe. Rather sub systems of a universe are a summation of their prior
interactions with the remainder of their universe via changes in the state
of the sur
Comments on my last post:
Abandoning the use of the word history which seems confusing, when I said
that a universe has an identifiable next state - since a universe was taken
as being defined by its current state - I meant that the current state can
identify a next state algorithmically - the
Some ideas re histories and universes:
1) Definitions:
Universe: A universe is defined by its current state.
Identifiable past history: The prior state can be fully determined from the
current state.
Identifiable future history: The next state can be fully determined by the
current state.
Dear Matthieu:
A clarification.
In the following:
> Even loops are possible.
Yes this could happen for universes with rules of evolution that have a
high random or "do not care" content.
While my model would allow a universe with a rather large random or "do not
Dear Matthieu:
Another correction to my post:
I said:
-
I allow that the current state of a universe contains the information
necessary to list all the possible future and prior states but not to
determine the actual prior and future states.
-
However, a universe may have a rule that a
Dear Matthieu:
I thought I had found all cases where I used "future" when I wanted to use
"next" but a few escaped and are corrected below:
xx
I allow that the current state of a universe contains the information
necessary to list all the possible next and prior states but not to
Dear Matthieu:
At 1/23/02, you wrote:
>An universe can be an oriented graph of states.
>
>Each state has no, one or more next states. It also has no, one or more
>previous states.
While I allow that a universe can have more than one possible previous
state or no previous state [when in the in
Dear Hal
At 1/18/02, you wrote:
snip
>I'm not convinced about the models of computation involving GTMs and
>such in Juergen Schmidhuber's paper. Basically these kinds of TMs can
>change their mind about the output, and the machine doesn't know when
>it is through changing its mind. So there
A correction to my model corrected:
Near the end it should say:
>Evolving universes must be isomorphic to a portion of
one of these successive manifest counterfactuals. It is not required that
a particular universe always be isomorphic the counterfactual at a given
level of the nesting. Su
A correction to my model:
Near the end it should say:
>Evolving universes must be isomorphic to a portion of
one of these successive manifest counterfactuals. It is not required that
it always be the same one.
> The nesting would allow an infinite number of such universes.
Hal
Sorry, I missed some editing errors in the lead in to the referenced post.
I meant to say:
I currently define information as fact(s) that are absent counter facts.
Example of counter facts [sort of]: In our universe the rules dictate that
any sufficiently large mass wants to assume a shape tha
I have been having a valuable discussion on this type of modeling and this
has resulted in some improvements in my approach.
x
I currently define information as fact(s) that are absent counter facts.
Example: [sort of] In our universe the rules dictate that any suf
The recent posts on "Does provability matter" prompt the following.
If information can be defined as the single valued resolution of an issue
then it would seem to me that information is actually consistency.
The only way I can see for all information to equal no information is for
there to be
Please allow me to try this one more time since I think I see why it did
not make it into the posted archive and I have a change to my additional
comment.
In #10 I discuss the length of the descriptive string. A better way to
state what is said there may be to indicate that I am only interest
55 matches
Mail list logo
