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
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
Mark Peaty wrote:
No Brent, what I AM saying is that they are GONE! Well and truly
gorrnn!
But they lasted a lot longer than we have.
We could get side tracked into all sorts of discussions about how each
of the civilisations you named, waxed and waned more than once
:
Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
survive without all four of these.
Talk about assertions without any evidence!
Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived
until recently without democracy or the scientific method
OK, tell me where all those civilisations of the past have gone to,
because THEY did NOT survived.
Tell me what makes YOU so sure this current global civilisation can
survive. I am more than happy to be shown where I am wrong, but if you
TRULY disagree with what I am saying, I would like you
must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called
'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that
can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they
are all expressions of belief and ONLY belief. Because there is no way
of relating these holy
Torgny Tholerus wrote:
Mark Peaty skrev:
However, we must call a spade a spade; all this guff that gets called
'theology' and 'spirituality' is ultimately a bunch of assertions that
can neither be proved nor disproved in any concrete sense because they
are all expressions of belief
fundamental ingredients of
civilisation:
Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
survive without all four of these.
Talk about assertions without any evidence!
Actually there's a lot of evidence that civilization developed and survived
until
[EMAIL PROTECTED], I rarely pass up an opportunity for religious debate,
but I am honestly overwhelmed by your recent posts. I hope you have not done
all this work just to be relegated to the list archive. How did you find us,
anyway?
Stathis Papaioannou
The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and
writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of
civilisation:
Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
survive without all four of these.
Talk about assertions without any
Klortho wrote:
The other thing I do is check to what extent a person's speech and
writings support and affirm the four fundamental ingredients of
civilisation:
Compassion, democracy, ethics and scientific method. No civilisation can
survive without all four of these.
Talk about
On Feb 25, 2:06 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in
accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined
by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute
that He is concealed from direct perception because of the
intensity of His Self-manifestation.
However, the great influence of positivist and materialist schools of
thought on science and on all people of recent centuries makes it
necessary to discuss such arguments. As this now-prevalent
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jesus said: I and the Father are one (Jn.10:30), therefore, is not
Jesus the same, or, co-equal in status with his Father?
Answer No.1
In Greek, `heis' means `one' numerically (masc.)
`hen' means `one' in unity or essence (neut.)
Here the word used by John is `hen'
But how do you know that the Qu'ran is actually the word of God? People
claim all sorts of things, and while it's often easy to prove that they
*claimed* these things (although as you rightly point out, with many
religions, such as Christianity, even this is not a given), the point is to
prove
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in
accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined
by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences
of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory remarks to
demonstrate how
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in
accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined
by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences
of Destiny, it may be sufficient to make some introductory
On 2/25/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Believing in Divine Destiny is one of the pillars of faith, and, in
accordance with this belief, everything in the universe is determined
by God, the All-Mighty. While there are countless absolute evidences
of Destiny, it may be sufficient
Le 11-janv.-07, à 15:15, Russell Standish a écrit :
I would further hypothesise that all intelligences must
arise evolutionarily.
I do believe this too, but once an intelligence is there it can be
copied in short time. Dishonest people do that with ideas, publishers
do that with writtings
worlds emerge from *all* computations making all
apparent (and thus sufficiently complex) world not turing emulable.
Recall that I am a machine entails the apparent universe cannot be a
machine (= cannot be turing-emulable (cf UDA(***)).
Bruno
I appreciate your result, that I am machine
proposition is that we live in 1; since 2 does exist
but is less probable than 1.
information in 1 = inf(A)
information in 2 = inf(simulation_A) + inf(SAS) + inf(possible other
stuff) = inf(A) + inf(SAS) + inf(possible other stuff) inf(A)
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all
?
By higher I gather you mean more complex. But I think you are
implicitly assuming that a more complex universe is needed to simulate
this one, which I think is wrong. All that is needed is Turing
completeness, which even very simple universes have (for instance
Conway's Game of Life).
Cheers
, strictly speaking even the notion of one universe (even
considered among other universes or in a multiverse à-la Deutsch) does
not make sense unless the comp substitution level is *very* low. Stable
appearances of local worlds emerge from *all* computations making all
apparent (and thus sufficiently
but is less probable than 1.
information in 1 = inf(A)
information in 2 = inf(simulation_A) + inf(SAS) + inf(possible other
stuff) = inf(A) + inf(SAS) + inf(possible other stuff) inf(A)
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all SASes and other
computing devices capable
2 does exist
but is less probable than 1.
information in 1 = inf(A)
information in 2 = inf(simulation_A) + inf(SAS) + inf(possible other
stuff) = inf(A) + inf(SAS) + inf(possible other stuff) inf(A)
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all SASes and other
computing devices
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:54:51AM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all SASes and other
computing devices capable of simulating universe A, the probability of
being in a simulation of A is identical to simply being in universe
Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:54:51AM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
You're still missing the point. If you sum over all SASes and other
computing devices capable of simulating universe A, the probability of
being in a simulation of A is identical to simply being in universe
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 02:07:28PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
Of course this point is moot if the universe is not simulable!
Or if the length of the code has nothing to do with it's probability.
Brent Meeker
No, because that assumption (Solomonoff-Levin style probability and
its
works at all.
I am referring to a perfect simulation by higher hand. The universe
where this simulation is taking place would both have all the
information of our universe (same amount of information) + the
information to describe the simulators (higher hand); which would be
more than
In a message dated 12/11/2006 3:35:36 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group,
In a message dated 12/11/2006 3:17:42 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group,
If the universe is computationallu simulable, then any universal
Turing machine will do for a higher hand. In which case, the
information needed is simply the shortest possible program for
simulating the universe, the length of which by definition is the
information content of the universe.
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from coincidental ones. How does a
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin wrote :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from coincidental ones. How does a
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 21-oct.-06, à 21:52, Charles Goodwin a écrit :
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter D
Jones
The problem is not that there are no such resemblances in a
Multiverse, it is that ther are far too many. How does one
distinguishing real ones from
to solve the measure problem, and so one.
There are three levels of existence in the model:
1) The list of all possible aspects of objects and ideas [and its
representative one to one correspondence with the natural numbers].
In our context all those terms have no obvious interpretation. What
Hi, Hal and Bruno,
the T is my problem as well (I swalloed it) because
ALL (pardon the pun) we may know is within the feeble
capabilities of our little minds and I have no right
to assume that 'nature' does not include much more
than this little segment. This is why I call whatever
I find out
is infinite and countable and its line
items representable by finite bit strings then my starting point is just
the natural numbers [including zero] along with an assignment of meaning to
each.
As I understand it the cardinality of the set of subsets of the natural
numbers [i.e. the All and its
My analysis continued:
Self awareness and consciousness:
If the All is just the set of reals with an assigned meaning for each then
undoubtedly some of these meanings would be kernels that contain sub
kernels describing Self Aware Structures [SAS]. Given the random nature of
the dynamic I
I have attached a revision to my model at (9) which makes the driver for
the evolution of the Somethings more explicit.
Definitions:
The list of all possibilities: The list of all the possible properties and
aspects of things. This list can not be empty since there is unlikely to
be less
On 01 Sep 2005, at 00:40, Stephen Paul King wrote: Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a Beginning? We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of our observed universe as we can wind our way back in history to a Big Bang Event Horizon, but this event itself must
it all begin?
Hi Godfrey,
Thanks for the ID. Now I know that Godfrey is one of the
mind-stretchers on this list.
I hope that Saibal will eventually tell us the reason(s) for
Dishonorable Mention.
I read Tegmark's paper too, where he seems to attribute the
beginning of
It to Inflation
: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?
This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable Mention?
Who is Godfrey?
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30
model shows
it from classical physics through QM - QED to even
postQ visions. The universe evolved non-linearly (some
like still to use the word: 'chaotically') so a
retrograde linearity is at best misconstrued. Then it
was assumed that all the 'physical laws' of our
presently observed model were
PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:57:54 -0700
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?
This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable
Mention?
Who is Godfrey?
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything everything-list
~~
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?
Hi Saibal, Norman
I did not mean to intervene but so that my name is not
called
, is not worth reading
if only because they misdirect thoughts more than they inform thoughts.
Onward!
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Norman Samish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?
Hi Godfrey
PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: How did it all begin?
Dear Friends,
Does it truly make sense to assume that Existence can have a Beginning?
We are not talking here, I AFAIK, about the beginning of our observed
universe as we can wind our
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Tegmark's essay was not well received (perhaps Godfrey didn't like it? :-) )
How did it all begin?
Authors: Max Tegmark
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did
This is a teaser. Why did Tegmark's paper receive Dishonorable Mention?
Who is Godfrey?
- Original Message -
From: Saibal Mitra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:14 AM
Subject: How did it all begin?
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro
restricted to our views?
(and I mean it broader than just numbers).
Best regards
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Have all possible events occurred
possible exists, does this not mean that
there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in
our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it
appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible
events have occurred?
Norman
one person
at a time. There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism
being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, all
interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's
hidden observer. Unless and until we fully understand how
that everything possible exists, does this not mean that
there exists a universe like ours, only as it will appear 10^100 years in
our future? And that there also exists a universe like ours, only as it
appeared 10^9 years in the past? And that, in all worlds, all possible
events have occurred
. There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism
being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules, all
interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's
hidden observer. Unless and until we fully understand how consciousness
is linked
writes: Spacetime could be infinite without everything
possible existing. It might even depend on how you define possible.
Are all real numbers possible?
Norman Samish writes:
Brent, to me this is cryptic. Can you enlarge on what you mean? Your
statement seems to contradict what I've read, more
that we experience being one person
at a time. There are numerous psychological models---neodissociationism
being just one---that posit a personality made up of multiple modules,
all interacting (somewhat) under the guidance of an executive, Hilgard's
hidden observer. Unless and until we fully
! There's got to be another answer to the questions that the
dual-state cat resolves.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: Stephen Paul King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Dear Norman
-Original Message-
From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:33 AM
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?
Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say if you believe that
everything possible exists are you
Dear Hal,
About this zero information feature, could it be due to a strict
communitivity between any given subset of the All/Nothing? I ask this
because it seems to me that the information content of any string follows
from the existence of a difference between one ordering of the bits
Hi Stephen:
Since the Nothing has no information by definition and the boundary between
them - the Everything - has no potential to divide further [i.e. no
information] then the All must have no information if the system has no
information. I do not think the latter part is controversial
it or not) but now I wonder:
Is Everything part of All, or All part of Everything? Then again it should
be that Nothing is part of Everything, maybe not necessarily of All. You
cannot say that everything except the nothing, but nothing cannot be part
of All: it is per definitionem the entirety
Hi Jesse:
I think some confusion took place surrounding the posts on or about
12/10.
In my initial post I said:
xx
9) Notice that the All also has a logical problem. Looking at
the same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all
possible answers because just one would
to avoid logical contradictions. I'm just saying that if you look at
the facts of each world/kernel and translate these facts into propositions
like all ducks have beaks (within this particular world/kernel), then you
will find that no proposition or collection of propositions about a single
world
,
it
is also true that X is true, even if no one notices this.'
how can an unnoticed truth be included into noticed (mutual) truth?
*
Time. I tackle a timeless (atemporal) system. The problem is change.
What does a timeless change mean? One has to eliminate 'sequence', the
result of a change, or: Hal's All
Hi Jesse:
I do not think the conversation re:
I can't think of any historical examples of new
mathematical/scientific/philosophical ideas that require you to already
believe their premises in order to justify these premises,
has a valid place in this thread. Can you tell me why you do?
Hal
concepts we might have, then I suppose there is no further need to discuss
this question.
I still have the feeling that this is not quite the case though, since you
are asking for comments/critiques of your theory, but what possible basis
could comments/critiques have unless you believed we all had
that X is true, even if no one notices this.'
how can an unnoticed truth be included into noticed (mutual) truth?
*
Time. I tackle a timeless (atemporal) system. The problem is change.
What does a timeless change mean? One has to eliminate 'sequence', the
result of a change, or: Hal's All is static
Hi Bruno and Jesse:
At 10:23 AM 12/18/2004, you wrote:
At 21:48 17/12/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Can a kernel of information be self inconsistent? From Bruno's last post
I think it is possible to impose this idea on the All.
I'm afraid I said the contrary (unless I misunderstand what you
statements about your theory as
a whole like the information re the Nothing is in the All so they are
infinitely nested you are assuming that the negation of these statements
(in this case, 'the information re the Nothing is not in the All so they are
not infinitely nested') is false.
Should we
At 21:48 17/12/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
Can a kernel of information be self inconsistent? From Bruno's last post
I think it is possible to impose this idea on the All.
I'm afraid I said the contrary (unless I misunderstand what you are
pointing at through the expression kernel of information
.
Indeed, it needs a universal machine, and even an infinity of them. But all
that exists and describes by the set of (sigma1) true arithmetical
propositions. See Podniek's page
http://www.ltn.lv/~podnieks/gt.html
So my question is, what do you mean when you say a universe that has a
sequence
At 03:31 18/12/04 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
I don't think Bruno's last post was really implying that everything
would be inconsistent, I thought his point was more that you can't
consider things like the collection of all possible sets to itself be a set.
Exactly. It is the machine which gives
the information re the Nothing is in the All so they are
infinitely nested you are assuming that the negation of these statements
(in this case, 'the information re the Nothing is not in the All so they
are not infinitely nested') is false.
See below
Should we have the hubris to impose this somewhat
for that convention is not
contained in the string itself. 'Taking' a Something as a bitstring
involves some degree of external convention.
One could argue that the rules for decoding a string are in the string
itself. So a given string would represent all structures that are such a
parsing
for two contradictory
statements about the state of a single cell at a single moment in a single
world to *both* be true?
Should we have the hubris to impose this somewhat questioned concept on
all other universes? In my view the states of all universes preexist in
the All [as some of the kernels
of
revealing it. The question I raise is the implicit inclusion of time in
this process. Should we have the hubris to impose this somewhat questioned
concept on all other universes? In my view the states of all universes
preexist in the All [as some of the kernels] and Physical Reality washes
over them
:
snip
My interest was to have a dynamic which did not impose any residual
information on the All. My current view is that each state of that
dynamic has to be completely independent of the current state. The
way I describe this is to say that the dynamic is inconsistent. It
helps this idea
of all true statements about
arithmetic would be both complete and consistent, so if you allow
non-computable sets of axioms you could just have every true statement
about arithmetic be an axiom.
Yes indeed. Most books give different definition of axiomatic and
recursively enumerable
class of first order logical theories (like Peano Arithmetics,
Zermelo Fraenkel Set theory, etc.) the completeness theorem of Godel
(note: the completeness, not the incompleteness one!) gives that being
consistent is equivalent with having a model.
The All contains all information
Hi Jesse:
I will go over the thread and try to clear things up but I am having eye
surgery in the morning and ran out of time.
Why would mathematics be the only thing in the All? Is that not a selection?
At 07:38 PM 12/13/2004, you wrote:
It is controversial that mathematics contains any
At 07:28 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
You wrote:
Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea
that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of evolving
Somethings, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems.
Just the reverse. The evolving
Hi Jesse:
At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said
something more general, like you're justifying the idea that the All is
inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms of
inconsistent
Hi Jesse:
At 09:35 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl:
Hi Jesse:
At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said
something more general, like you're justifying the idea that the All
is inconsistent in terms of your own
Hal Ruhl wrote:
OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said
something more general, like you're justifying the idea that the All is
inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms of
inconsistent axiomatic systems.
Do you grant that the All which
Hal Ruhl:
Hi Jesse:
At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said
something more general, like you're justifying the idea that the All is
inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms
Hi Jesse
You wrote:
Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea
that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of evolving
Somethings, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems.
Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass
Hal,
With reference to your inconsistent TOE model (which I do not claim to
understand), you state My approach solves these issues for ME . . . You
also state All universes over and over is in my belief system more
satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as self aware
to your inconsistent TOE model (which I do not claim to
understand), you state My approach solves these issues for ME . . . You
also state All universes over and over is in my belief system more
satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as self aware
and free will etc. at least
Hal Ruhl wrote:
You wrote:
Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea
that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of evolving
Somethings, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems.
Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass
of both erected by the unavoidable
definition and has no further ability to divide so it has no information.
Thus the All must have no net internal information.
Neither the All nor the Nothing can stand alone because they are a
definitional pair and their simultaneity allows the boundary
Hal Ruhl wrote:
A kernel of information is the that information constituting a particular
potential to divide.
The All contains all such kernels.
The All is internally inconsistent because it contains for example a
complete axiomatized arithmetic as well as an infinity of other such
kernels
Hi Jesse:
Meaning can not be assigned as an inherent component of the All. That
would be a selection. Meaning can only be assigned if at all within the
wave of physical reality associated with an evolving Something. Evolving
Somethings will eventually encompass pairs of counterfactual
(with a little a) for an axiomatizable
presentation of arithmetic, and Arithmetic for the set of sentence true in
the standard model of arithmetic.
We have reached too many levels of nesting. I have been of on my own
excavations. Is not all true arithmetical sentences a part of comp?
Comp
At 16:29 08/12/04 +0100, I wrote:
Before axiomatic set theories like
Zermelo-Fraenkel, ... Cantor called the collection of all
sets the Inconsistent. But this does make sense for
me. Only a theory, or a machine, or a person can be inconsistent, not
a set, or a realm, or a model.
Read instead
psychology/computer science.
Your responses made my point I think. It is this issue I struggle
with. I seek a TOE that has no net information. Though its components
individually may have any amount of information the sum of all the
information in all the components is no information.
Why
then eventually physics is derivable from machine psychology/computer science.
I have almost no current opposition to this. It sounds to me that it is in
the All with my adder of a random input to the machine.
Your responses made my point I think. It is this issue I struggle
with. I seek a TOE
At 06:37 PM 12/7/2004, you wrote:
To clarify - the All contains all information simultaneously [see the
definition in the original post] - including ALL Truing machines with ALL
possible output tapes - so it contains simultaneously both output tapes
re your comment below.
But if there is a fact
Hi Jesse:
At 09:23 PM 12/7/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
To clarify - the All contains all information simultaneously [see the
definition in the original post] - including ALL Truing machines with
ALL possible output tapes - so it contains simultaneously both output
tapes re your comment
Maybe this will help:
The All contains all possible output states of all Turing machines [among
all manner of other info such as states of really messy universes]
simultaneously. These states are given Physical reality by evolving
Somethings in random order over and over. Some such sequences
901 - 1000 of 1074 matches
Mail list logo
