Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Can someone obtain for me the email addresses of the authors? Thank you! Jamie Rose - Original Message From: Zen_Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Everything List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2008 4:42:46 AM Subject: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Brian Tenneson: > Why is the universe a subset of the set "information" (which I assume is > defined in the article) and why can it not be formalized? > > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Zen_Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > As to "Algebraic Physics"; as well as to Wei Dai's ``every

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Why is the universe a subset of the set "information" (which I assume is defined in the article) and why can it not be formalized? On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:38 AM, Zen_Ved <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As to "Algebraic Physics"; as well as to Wei Dai's ``everything'' > questionnaire: > > - po

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

As to "Algebraic Physics"; as well as to Wei Dai's ``everything'' questionnaire: - possibly that it will be rather useful to read http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0703043 , V5 (and the first couple of pages in V1). Note also briefly: the Universe (Universes ) is/are subsets of a very specific set

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi Gunther, > thanks for your respone, looking forward to the next round of > stimulating discussion in July :-)) With pleasure, Best, Bruno --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" g

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Le 20-mai-08, à 01:40, Russell Standish a écrit : > > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:32:14PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> ... >>> Zombie are important in philosophy, a bit like zero is important in >>> Number Theory, or like the empty set is important in Set Theory, I >>

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Dear Bruno, thanks for your respone, looking forward to the next round of stimulating discussion in July :-)) Cheers, Günther --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to thi

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 12:32:14PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > ... > > Zombie are important in philosophy, a bit like zero is important in > > Number Theory, or like the empty set is important in Set Theory, I > > think. For example, it is easy to show that if Bohm Q

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Bruno Marchal wrote: > ... > Zombie are important in philosophy, a bit like zero is important in > Number Theory, or like the empty set is important in Set Theory, I > think. For example, it is easy to show that if Bohm QM is correct, > then the Everett Universal waves if full of zombies, even

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi Bruno, >> Galen Strawson, 'Realistic monism: why physicalism entails >> panpsychism' 2006 >> http://web.gc.cuny.edu/philosophy/people/strawson/rmwpep.pdf > > The author admits himself that his doctrine is more a form of > experential/non-experiential-ist (thus dualist) doctrine. It seems t

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi Gunther, On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Galen Strawson, 'Realistic monism: why physicalism entails > panpsychism' 2006 > http://web.gc.cuny.edu/philosophy/people/strawson/rmwpep.pdf > The author admits himself that his doctrine is more a for

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Oops. to finish... For all devices x, if x is complex is some sense then x is conscious in some (possibly other) sense. In other words, for all devices x, (a) -logically entails- (b): (a) there is a partition D_t of t such that T(x; R, D_t) = 1 (b) there is a partition (D_t)' of t such that T(x

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi Bruno, I mean logical implication and definitely -not- in the sense of production and -most definitely not- causation. I sat down for once and wrote something down and here's basically what the statement of my idea (which could easily be "wrong"): [+1] If x is a (Wolpert) device, then (if "x i

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Le 13-mai-08, à 18:27, Brian Tenneson a écrit : > I must admit to a little hand waving.  OK, maybe a lot. Actually you are not. Not necessarily so, I mean. *I* could have been wrong. Let me explain: When you said: <> I interpreted as: "Randomness causes or produces consciousness". But

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi Bruno, I must admit to a little hand waving. OK, maybe a lot. So I shall try some more of it; I think I will practice it in case I ever need to persuade anyone to believe my conjectures are true, false, or neither. What I mean to say, if you will, is actually a slightly (only slightly) more

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi Brian, Le 13-mai-08, à 02:00, Brian Tenneson a écrit : > > [...] > To recapitulate, the statement of the idea is this: > [1] > Randomness implies consciousness. I don't see why, or even what this could mean. > The converse appears to be false. Comp (+ Consciousness or just first pers

Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Oh, I'd also like to guess that if O(x) means that x is an omniscient device or oracle that the implications go this way: O(x) ==> R([x]) AND O(x) ==> S(x). The second one should be easy to prove while the first, for me, is less obvious and possibly false. Let's suppose that has any bearing on t

Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

John, On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:51 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian, > you can count on me to support you for the verbosity medal. In your > longlong blurb 4 lines are randomly printed, but from the 5th to the 2nd > from bottom there is an empty word-space at ~60% of the lines,

Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Brian, you can count on me to support you for the verbosity medal. In your longlong blurb 4 lines are randomly printed, but from the 5th to the 2nd from bottom there is an empty word-space at ~60% of the lines, neetly arranged as an internal (in-text) margin. I admired it. Bruno, btw, is grammatic

Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Oops, instead of neither all those times, I think I "needed" to say "none" whatever "need" means in the context of language. On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Brian Tenneson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find that words and their meaning can have magical properties, despite > this discussion not

Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

I find that words and their meaning can have magical properties, despite this discussion not seeming to me to have bearing on my article; perhaps a new thread on semantics can be started? It matters not to me. For example, if I say all that is is all that is, then I am not really saying much. On

re:Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

JamesTauber wrote: >1) the problem is theirs not ours >vs >2) it is their problem not our problem So, if I understand well, our problems are ours, and their problems are theirs. Thanks for the teaching: I didn't dare to put a "s" on "their", up to now, especially after a plural (but only con

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 01:17:30AM -0400, James Tauber wrote: > > James > (who happened to do his undergrad linguistics degree where Russell did > his undergrad physics/maths) > I bow down to your superior knowledge :). To be truthful, my knowledge of English grammar comes entirely from study

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On May 8, 2008, at 5:43 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > "ours" is the word you're looking for. A genitive 1st person plural > adjective. Furthermore, it's the *independent* form of the 1st person plural genitive pronoun. When functioning as a dependent adjective, it's just "our". Compare 1) t

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Le 08-mai-08, à 23:43, Russell Standish a écrit : > > On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:12:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> after all that is their problem, not us's. (if that is english ... I >> guess not, Hope you see what I mean). >> > > "ours" is the word you're looking for. A genitive 1st perso

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:31:29PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Really? I think Schmidhuber's speed prior concerns intrinsic > computational speed (like when comparing different algorithm). If not, > nothing computational would remains in Schmidhuber's approach. Step 5 > (or even 4) i

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 04:12:33PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > after all that is their problem, not us's. (if that is english ... I > guess not, Hope you see what I mean). > "ours" is the word you're looking for. A genitive 1st person plural adjective. English is a strange language sometimes.

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Le 08-mai-08, à 06:48, Russell Standish a écrit : > > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:40:00PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> even the non computable reals. And, given that from a first person >> point of view we cannot be aware of the infinitely many delays, we >> have to take into account, to el

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hello Günther, > thanks for the long and informative post. Y're welcome. > >> Hmmm The UDA should just show that, and I am not sure which points >> you are missing. Suppose there is a physical concrete universe and >> that > > I know that I am missing a point somewhere :-) > I have print

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

I'm going to go out on a limb here for a second. IF, and that's a big if, the algebraic physics theory is correct (whatever that means in this context), time in my discussion of transition dimensions, which is something I wrote in my notebook about dimensions that doesn't need to correlate to "you

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 03:40:00PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > even the non computable reals. And, given that from a first person > point of view we cannot be aware of the infinitely many delays, we > have to take into account, to eliminate white rabbits (or to refute > comp) all the poss

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Indeed, thanks. This has been very interesting. It will take me some time to process this. On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Bruno, > > thanks for the long and informative post. > > > Hmmm The UDA should just show that, and I am not sure whi

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Dear Bruno, thanks for the long and informative post. > Hmmm The UDA should just show that, and I am not sure which points > you are missing. Suppose there is a physical concrete universe and that I know that I am missing a point somewhere :-) I have printed out your post and will work it

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Dear Günther, Le 06-mai-08, à 21:19, Günther Greindl a écrit : > - CRH implies COMP > - COMP implies the negation of CRH > >> Universality, Sigma_1 completeness, m-completness, creativity >> (in Post sense), all those equivalent notion makes sense only through >> complementary notion which are

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Dear Bruno, - CRH implies COMP - COMP implies the negation of CRH > Universality, Sigma_1 completeness, m-completness, creativity >(in Post sense), all those equivalent notion makes sense only through >complementary notion which are strictly sepaking more complex (non RE, productive, ...).

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Jason Resch set it up. I assume he's still lurking on the everything list. Are you still there Jason? On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 10:03:39PM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote: > > Russell, > > Good to know that it's still there :-)) > > > And it hasn't so much died, but rather gone into suspended > > a

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Russell, Good to know that it's still there :-)) > And it hasn't so much died, but rather gone into suspended > animation. It can be found at http://everythingwiki.gcn.cx/wiki/ Do you know who is responsible for it? Before we consider adding entries it would be good to confirm that it won't go

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

At the very least, I could register and start wiki-ing -my- posts here before they get anywhere near massive in number, right? OR is it frozen? I think I'm confused on that point. I'd like to have a hyperlinked version of the explanation of Bruno's argument against the CRH. I think the "physica

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 12:50:49AM +0200, Günther Greindl wrote: > > There was an everything wiki once, I gather, why did the project die? > Would there be interest on the list in starting a collaboration to get a > wiki going and extract stuff from the archives? > > Cheers, > Günther > It di

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

I would be interested in seeing the wiki, if not helping in any (small) way I could. Thank you, Günther. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Brian, > > Russell Standish has a book summarising some stuff, also many references > at the end (will bring

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Dear Brian, Russell Standish has a book summarising some stuff, also many references at the end (will bring you up to speed on definitions like ASSA/RSSA): http://www.hpcoders.com.au/nothing.html (pdf on that site:http://www.hpcoders.com.au/theory-of-nothing.pdf) Schmidhuber has interesting pa

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

;) yes. I know the "book" of the future is an archive like this, but something with a table of contents and index would be pretty sweet. Without such, I have trouble reading books. On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:24 PM, nichomachus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You mean, besides the archive of this

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

You mean, besides the archive of this list? ;) On May 1, 2:16 pm, "Brian Tenneson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been > collected?  I would like to get my hands on such. > > --Brian > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM,

Re: Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hi All, I was wondering if there was a tome where all these ideas have been collected? I would like to get my hands on such. --Brian On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Marchal Bruno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello Günther, > > > > > >> I have already presented an argument (an easy consequ

re:Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Hello Günther, >> I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the >> Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably) showing that: >> >> - CRH implies COMP >> - COMP implies the negation of CRH >> - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Dear Bruno, > I have already presented an argument (an easy consequence of the > Universal Dovetailer Argument, which is less easy probably) showing that: > > - CRH implies COMP > - COMP implies the negation of CRH > - Thus, with or without COMP (and with or without the MUH) the CRH does > not

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

I believe I found some upgrades. I was going to write all my ideas down but with a deadline, I just wanted to get the basic kernel down by April 30. Here is the latest version: http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/00-01-00.pdf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Y

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Your feedback is valuable and most appreciated. I'd like to continue learning about the CRH after this gets sent off. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group,

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Le 29-avr.-08, à 13:40, Brian Tenneson a écrit : > Thanks, Bruno.  Feedback from you is quite valuable. > I vaguely recall mentioning somewhere online that I am attempting to > give a contributed talk at this conference: > http://www.mat.unisi.it/~latd2008/ > > I mainly need something to get my

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Thanks, Bruno. Feedback from you is quite valuable. I vaguely recall mentioning somewhere online that I am attempting to give a contributed talk at this conference: http://www.mat.unisi.it/~latd2008/ I mainly need something to get my foot in the door. Now s

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

Le 28-avr.-08, à 21:46, Brian Tenneson wrote : > > I will be updating this as time progresses. All versions including > the current and only version, 00-00-04 can be found here: > http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/ > > The current and only version is 00-00-04 which can be downlo

Re: All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

There was a flaw in version 00-00-04. Version 00-00-05 is now up at http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/ and version 5 can be downloaded directly here: http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/00-00-05.pdf --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received t

All feedback appreciated - An introduction to Algebraic Physics

I will be updating this as time progresses. All versions including the current and only version, 00-00-04 can be found here: http://www.universalsight.org/conference_abstract/ The current and only version is 00-00-04 which can be downloaded directly in pdf format here: http://www.universalsight.

Introduction

have at least one rudimentary sensory organ and some kind of memory. My search was not fruitful, except that it found a 'hit' in one of the discussions in this group. Fortunately, I do not possess any specialized knowledge that you would not understand, so this introduction is really unne

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Brent Meeker wrote: >OK. So do you invoke an anthropic principle in the step (computer law) >=> (mind law) ... Let us a say a Church Turing Markov -tropic principle, eventually. If you want I (re)define the physical by what is observable by a sound universal machine. And observable is eventuall

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Brent Meeker wrote (out of line, but I guess it is by error): >I'm a little unclear on the ontological hierarchy of your TOE. Do you >propose to show that, out of all computations, all our conscious >experiences are recovered (by somehow identifying appropriate histories >corresponding to "us" i

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Check out "The Whipping Star" by Frank Herbert. A neat story but kind of twisted. The story is about stars that are conscious. Robert W. > could be conscious/aware in a way that we might recognize. > > If so, then stars too would probably have a very different idea > about "foundations" than we

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hi Fred, >I think relying on the sum/integral over all possible programs as the FINAL >explanation would lead to avoiding the questions about details of the >criteria. We are safe because we are included in the overall sum. True, for >the general purpose of explaining our existence, we don't kno

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

> > I don't see why we should limit ourselves to the simplest possible universe > containing consciousness. > > I would think that all worlds containing consciousness would be inhabited > naturally. > > Joel > Actually I agree, fundamentally. Perhaps, there is just a gut feeling around that "sim

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno, I think we are probably just talking past each other...perhaps our background/goals are different. > >To reconcile with anthropic fine-tuning without white rabbits, I had bought > >into the postulate that we were in the simplest possible universe, in the > >absence of knowing the exact cr

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Fred: > Without knowing these criteria, we cannot tell what is the simplest > possible universe containing consciousness. I don't see why we should limit ourselves to the simplest possible universe containing consciousness. I would think that all worlds containing consciousness would be inhabit

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Fred Chen wrote: >I appreciate how something like the Universal Dovetailer or equivalent >programs can generate an infinite set of programs that could include the one >that describes our universe (including our consciousness). You are confusing Schmidhuber-like theories with me-like theories (if

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno, Joel, et. al., I appreciate how something like the Universal Dovetailer or equivalent programs can generate an infinite set of programs that could include the one that describes our universe (including our consciousness). However, Godel's theorem applied to this top-down approach would pre

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel: >> Note: I have neglected to mention explicitly that I believe this >> complicated, god-like friendly entity is *us*. Bruno: > What do you mean by *us*? Anyone who wants to participate, I suppose. I'm not sure. > I tell you Joel, if by "us" you really mean *us*, the universal > machin

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel Dobrzelewski wrote (in part): >Note: I have neglected to mention explicitly that I believe this >complicated, god-like friendly entity is *us*. What do you mean by *us*? Joel Dobrzelewski and Plamen Petrov? Bulgarians? Europeans? Humans? Terrestrians? Solarians? Galac

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno: > I should have been more clear. I put at the (3-) bottom > arithmetical truth. It just means I believe sentence like > "2+2=4", Fermat theorem, ... Yes, I think we agree on this point. I gave the example of the minimal cellular automaton as another third-person verifiable structure.

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel wrote: >>Bruno: >> I am not sure there is any (absolute) bottom. > >Mustn't we assume there is? > >If there is no bottom, what will we stand on? > >How can we understand anything at all? I should have been more clear. I put at the (3-) bottom arithmetical truth. It just means I believe sent

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel: > It wasn't wishful thinking that allowed them to escape their > planet's gravity! hpm: > Maybe they didn't evolve on a planet. Cometary clouds have > vastly more stuff in them than planets do, even if it is a little > diffuse. Ok, yes - this is a good idea that I admit I wasn't thinki

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel wrote: > > This may be true, but has anyone here (or anywhere else) ever > checked to see that we can't program the universe exactly with > simple algorithms? > > I think this is something new. (Check out what Stephen Wolfram has > been doing lately: http://www.wolframscience.com) > > Every

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

hpm: > Races that live in space realize that it's perfectly OK to build > structures that have no foundation at all. They can be circular > and unsupported, yet if you spin them they'll have gravity just > like the ponderous planetary piles! This is a clever argument, but I think it's just a

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

I agree - thought is its own foundation. See www.higgo.com/quantum - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: everything list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 10:11 PM Subject: Re: Introduction (Digital Physics) > > Joel: > ... But there M

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel: ... But there MAY be some reasons to want to know exactly which algorithm is really being run on the bottom... Bruno: I am not sure there is any (absolute) bottom. Joel: Mustn't we assume there is? If there is no bottom, what will we stand on? How can we understand anything at all? I wro

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno: >> All of this may seem academic really, since we all know that any >> universal computer is as good as any other. It's kindof like arguing >> about the kind of wood God's stool is made out of! But there MAY be >> some reasons to want to know exactly which algorithm is really being >> run o

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Russell: >Christof and Juergen are brothers, aren't they? Yes. I must say I am quite impressed by the field-semantics of propositional logic. Which part exactly? I'm not sure to figure out. I don't know enough "statistical mechanics" to understand some technical points, also. Note that page 17

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel misspoke: > Finally, CA require no (3rd person) interpretation as to the special > relationships between bit patterns. They are represented naturally in > the geometric cellular space. Sorry, that should be "spatial relationships". Joel

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno: > See http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2793.html for a universal > dovetailer written in LISP. Among the LISP programs you have all the > simulation of Fortran programs, Joel's minimal cellular automata, > etc. Yes, this is true. But (of course :) I would like to argue in favor of

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Fred: > Perhaps you are saying all worlds have some commonality eventually? > Such as the program you mention below? Yes, I suppose so. If you'd like something to visualize... Imagine a huuuge "Game of Life" grid. Some regions of space will contain worlds that are relatively self-contained for

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Fred Chen wrote: >Sounds like you are going after some magic program that generates all >possible programs. Would this program be a logical necessity in and of >itself? That is, must it necessarily exist? Or would it just happen to >exist? It is a theorem that it exists a universal program able

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel, thanks for your clarification. > > Fred: > > If two worlds within this everything are contradictory or not > > consistent with each other, with no common ground, how exactly do > > they interact? > > Well I believe the universe is strictly local and completely homogeneous at > the bottommo

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Fred: > If two worlds within this everything are contradictory or not > consistent with each other, with no common ground, how exactly do > they interact? Well I believe the universe is strictly local and completely homogeneous at the bottommost layer. So even though two worlds/cosmoses may be

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel Dobrzelewski wrote: >Good idea. Let me just say that I believe the world is deterministic. > >But in my mind, this is not incompatible with freewill. I agree. >Though technically, I can >only WANT one thing at a time. Y're lucky! >But I realize most people do not feel this way, and

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno: >>> The mind body admit a lot of subproblem, like what is free-will >> >>An illusion. > > An illusion? That is a rather quick answer. Let us not enter into > that perenial debate. Perhaps I should ask you exemple of what is not > an illusion, what is your ontology. Good idea. Let me jus

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Robert: > I object to what I see as an attempt to constrain all viewpoints to > a particular way of seeing. > > I think your idea is fine. A tool for seeing things from a given > vantage point. I'm sure there are other vantage points worth > visiting, and tools needed to see from those perspective

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Christof and Juergen are brothers, aren't they? Marchal wrote: > > Serafino Cerulli-Irelli (scerir) wrote: > > >Christof Schmidhuber wrote an interesting paper, along that path: > >"Strings from Logic" http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 > >"What are strings made of? The possibility is discuss

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel, let's clarify our positions: > To be clear, I envision just one universe that contains everything. Within > it may be many worlds or sub-worlds, but these are not independent. They > interact. If two worlds within this everything are contradictory or not consistent with each other, with n

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Serafino Cerulli-Irelli (scerir) wrote: >Christof Schmidhuber wrote an interesting paper, along that path: >"Strings from Logic" http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0011065 >"What are strings made of? The possibility is discussed that strings >are purely mathematical objects, made of logical axioms. Mo

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hi Scerir. Thanks for your explanation of Godel's theorem. > Goedel's argument does not prove the existence of absolutely > unprovable (arithmetical) truths. > > Its conclusion is relative to some first-order axiom system > (of elementary arithmetic), and proves only that there is a true > propos

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hello, --- Joel Dobrzelewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Bruno: > Would you formalise that by the total (defined everywhere) functions > from N to N, or do you accept the partial computable functions as > well? And why would you not accept also the functions computable > relatively to the halting problem? They correspond naturally to the > function comp

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

> > Let us take the realist approach and focus on the things we can actually > > compute fully. > > Joel > Godel's theorem prevents us from simulating all aspects of our > universe. > Fred Is that true? Goedel's argument does not prove the existence of absolutely unprovable (arithmetical) trut

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hi Fred: > I agree that any useful TOE should be able to be implemented on a > (large enough) computer. Yes, I agree. > This computation can then SIMULATE the relevant or important aspects > of the universe we observe, or all aspects of other possible > universes, with their APPARENT real-numb

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

I wrote: >1) all function from N to N is computable. >2) all function from R to R is continuous. I was meaning (of course): 1) all functions from N to N are computable. 2) all functions from R to R are continuous. I apologize for my use of a random algorithm for chosing betwee

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel wrote >Bruno: >> The formulations are as numerous than the philosophical systems. >> >> For a materialist the problem is to explain what are the necessary >> and sufficient conditions for having the feeling of pain in a leg. > >Consider me a materialist then, I suppose. In the literature a

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Russell: > As an instance of the sort of problems you face, the number 0.1 can > be represented as a finite string in base 10, but cannot be > represented as a finite binary string (floating point number). Is 0.1 > a valid number then? Unless you completely do the Kronecker thing, or > course

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

OO oh dear. i can't resist the temptation to jump O O O into the fray. please feel free to ignore me. O OO Joel wrote: OOO OO > Ahhh... but does that little program ever O OO > return a value? Does it ev

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hi Brent: > I find myself agreeing with you on your general point that any > computational theory of everything must be strictly finite - not just > countable. Thank goodness! I was beginning to think I was all alone!! > On the other hand I think you are missing the point about pi. Pi can > b

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel wrote: >If we cannot program it... it's not a Theory of EVERYTHING. It's just a >description. You really should be an intuitionist mathematicien. It is consistent with most intuitionist mathematical system that 1) all function from N to N is computable. 2) all function from R to

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hello again Joel. I think I can agree with you, in a pragmatic sense, with what you state below. I agree that any useful TOE should be able to be implemented on a (large enough) computer. This computation can then SIMULATE the relevant or important aspects of the universe we observe, or all aspec

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Joel Dobrzelewski wrote: > > But I don't dispute this, as I wasn't talking about the finite > representation. I was talking about the infinite process / function that pi > represents. > > Maybe this is obvious, but my whole point is that we are fooling ourselves > if we think we can compute phy

Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

Hello Joel On 25-Jun-01, Joel Dobrzelewski wrote: > Joel: >>> It seems to me there is a great deal more information in PI than >>> just the 2 bytes it takes to convey it in an email message. > > Russell: >> Not much more. One could express pi by a short program - eg the >> Wallis formula, that w

<    1   2   3   >