Impressive result by Alex Smith!
Funny though how Wolfram's web sites on this
print Wolfram's name in larger font and more
frequently than Smith's, even trying to sell this
as "New Kind Of Science" although it's just a
continuation of a decades-old search for
small universal Turing machines :-)
B
Hi Max,
in this particular universe it's going well, thank you!
As promised, I had a look at your paper. I think
it is well written and fun to read. I've got a few comments
though, mostly on the nature of math vs computation,
and why Goedel is sexy but not an issue
when it comes to identifying po
Dear colleagues,
many interesting talks
at the Zuse Symposium:
Is the universe a computer?
Berlin Nov 6-7, 2006
http://www.dtmb.de/Aktuelles/Aktionen/Informatikjahr-Zuse/
Best regards,
-JS
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Y
.html
Many really smart physicists do not know this
yet. Technical issues and limits of computable
universes are discussed in papers available at:
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/computeruniverse.html
Even stronger predictions using a prior based
on the fastest programs (not the shortest):
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/speedprior.html
-Juergen Schmidhuber
the heart of all inductive sciences, some of the results
are relevant not only for AI and computer science but also for
physics, provoking nontraditional predictions based on Zuse's
thesis of the computer-generated universe.
Comments welcome!
Juergen Schmidhuberhttp://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
several others)..."
Ed Clark has a nice review page on Wolfram's book:
http://www.math.usf.edu/~eclark/ANKOS_reviews.html
It includes Scott Aaronson's interesting review which also
addresses the issue of Bell's inequality.
Best,
Juergen http://www.idsia.ch/~ju
I welcome feedback on a little web page on Zuse's 1967 thesis
(which states that the universe is being computed on a cellular automaton):
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/digitalphysics.html
Juergen Schmidhuber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> as for your point in your post about wheeler attaching
> his name to the theory, I think its ok for proponents
> and not originators of a theory to be named along with it.
> for example lately Ive been referring to the
> fredkin-wolfram thesis. fredkin is far more the
>
Bill Jefferys wrote:
>
> At 7:09 PM +0200 8/2/02, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
>
> >beta decay is not random but due to some fast pseudo-random
> >generator which we should try to discover.
>
> This last claim would appear to contradict some well-supported
>
following COLT paper may be old news to some
on this list.
--
The Speed Prior: a new simplicity measure yielding near-optimal
computable predictions (Juergen Schmidhuber, IDSIA)
In J. Kivinen and R. H. Sloan, eds,
uickly as
the history's fastest program, save for a (possibly huge) constant that
does not depend on output size.
Juergen Schmidhuber http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
Wei Dai wrote:
> BTW, isn't the justification for universal prediction taken in this paper
> kind of opposite to the one you took? The abstract says "The problem,
> however, is that in many cases one does not even have a reasonable guess
> of the true distribution. In order to overcome this proble
Bill Jefferys wrote:
>
> At 10:59 AM +0200 4/3/02, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> >The theory of inductive inference is Bayesian, of course.
> >But Bayes' rule by itself does not yield Occam's razor.
>
> "By itself?" No one said it did. Of course assum
become aware of this. It is essential to what they are
doing. And much more formal and concrete than Popper's
frequently cited but non-quantitative ideas on falsifiability.
Juergen Schmidhuberhttp://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
Bill Jefferys wrote:
> It's pointless wasting my time on this. As both Russell and I pointed
> out, this is a standard example that is cited by people who are
> knowledgeable about the AP. Either you have a different definition of
> predictive power than the rest of us do, or you don't understan
Bill Jefferys wrote:
>
> At 9:19 AM +0100 3/27/02, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> >You are claiming the AP necessarily implies a specific fact about
> >nuclear energy levels? I greatly doubt that - can you give a proof?
>
> Yes, I can.
>
>
>http://adsabs.harvard.
, NIPS,
Int. J. of Foundations of CS: www.idsia.ch/~marcus
Juergen Schmidhuber
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
Wei Dai wrote:
> I don't understand how you can believe that the probability of more
> dominant priors is zero. That implies if I offered you a bet of $1
> versus your entire net worth that large scale quantum computation will
> in fact work, you'd take that bet. Would you really?
Your dollar ag
ite interesting, and others who do not share my
belief in the Speed Prior might do so too.
Juergen Schmidhuber
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/html.html
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/
Wei Dai wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:35:58AM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> > > Why do you prefer the Speed Prior? Under the Speed Prior, oracle universes
> > > are not just very unlikely, they have probability 0, right? Suppose one
> > > day w
Wei Dai wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying the provability issue. I think I understand and
> agree with you.
>
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 12:05:22PM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> > What about exploitation? Once you suspect you found the PRG you can use
> > i
Wei Dai wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 10:49:41AM +0100, Juergen Schmidhuber wrote:
> > Which are the logically possible universes? Tegmark mentioned a
> > somewhat
> > vaguely defined set of ``self-consistent mathematical structures,''
> > implying p
etc. So this universe features lots of unprovable
aspects.
But why should this lack of provability matter? Ignoring this universe
just implies loss of generality. Provability is not the issue.
Juergen Schmidhuber
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/everything/html.html
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/
> > > From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > The only reason for not accepting the simplest thing is if it can be
> > > shown to be logically inconsistent. This far, you have shown no such
> > > thing, but rather demonstrated an enormous confusion between measure
> > > and probability di
Schmidhuber:
>>It's the simplest thing, given this use of mathematical
>>language we have agreed upon. But here the power of the
>>formal approach ends - unspeakable things remain unspoken.
Marchal:
>I disagree. I would even say that it is here that the serious formal
>approach begins. Take "un
> From: Juho Pennanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> So there may be no 'uniform probability distribution' on the set of all
> strings, but there is the natural probability measure, that is in many
> cases exactly as useful.
Sure, I agree, measures are useful; I'm using them all the time. But in
general t
>Or you mean "the Goedelian sentence", i.e. the statement
>constructed from the formal system saying that it will not be proved
>in the system, in which case you are correct.
I do mean "the Goedelian sentence". Sorry!
Juergen
Hi Max,
>>>2) If so, should we really limit ourself to this particular kind
>>>of mathematical structures? My concern is that we may be a bit too
>>>narrow-minded if we do.
>> But this sort of narrow-mindedness seems necessary to remain within the
>> formally describable realm. I'd go beyond co
> Step n owns 2^(n-1) initial segments.
Bruno, why are we discussing this? Sure, in finite time you can compute
all initial segments of size n. In countable time you can compute one
real, or a countable number of reals. But each of your steps needs more
than twice the time required by the previ
ates things, so much that we cannot even talk about
it in a formal way.
Juergen Schmidhuber www.idsia.ch
?
Shaved by Occam's razor.
Juergen
____
Juergen Schmidhuber www.idsia.ch
Bruno:
> Honestly it is still not clear. How could ever "S(U)=TRUE" be computable ?
> As a computer scientist I guess you know that even the apparently simple
> question "does that piece of code computes the factorial function" is not
> computable.
Sure, it's not even decidable in general whethe
> It seems we're losing track of the original objection, which is to say that:
> 1. everything exists (all relationships are equally valid, all worlds
> exists, you can string 'snapshots in time' together any way you wish - with
> a glass unsmashing or whatever - and all are equally likeley, as al
Bruno wrote:
> I don't take the notion of observer for granted.
Neither do I, of course. The observer O is something computable that
evolves in some universe U.
> The problem is that "to be in a universe" has no clear meaning
But it does. There is a computable predicate S such that S(U)=TRUE
35 matches
Mail list logo
