it
is an important issue to get right and to be clear about.
Hal Finney
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
of hand-waving we
sometimes get away with around here, explaining why bunnies can't fly),
the anthropic universe is not physics. It is philosophy, and physicists
want nothing to do with it.
Hal Finney
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
Saibal Mitra writes:
From: Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The real problem is not just that it is a philosophical speculation,
it is that it does not lead to any testable physical predictions.
The string theory landscape, even if finite, is far too large for
systematic exploration. Our
in that regard, though.
Hal Finney
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
is an illusion and is not real.
Hal Finney
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email
such that adjacent objects can have various
degrees of Physical Reality. The Physical Reality function would
have various pulse widths and pulse shapes spanning a cluster of
objects in the succession. This allows objects and sub-components of
such objects to experience a flow of existence.
Hal
.
Any mapping which could specify such an entity will be enormous and will
not contribute meaningfully to the measure of such entities.
Hal Finney
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group
computationalism would say that consciousness depends on the results of
counterfactual tests done in other branches or worlds of the multiverse.
Hal Finney
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
relative states which are effectivelly
independent, hence that the relative state concept is physically useful.
Hal
Mitchell Porter sent this only to me, by accident, and asked me to forward
it to the list:
From: Mitchell Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: many worlds interpretation
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Finney)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 22:23:51 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply
I am extremely saddened to hear of the passing of one of our companions.
Hal
Dear Juergen:
In case what I tried to say was not clear the idea is that there are no
more than 2^(N + c) shortest possible unique proofs in an N-bit FAS. How
can number theory if it is a finite FAS contain an infinite number of
unique theorems?
Hal
Dear Hal
Here is the second quote. It is from Chaitin's The Limits of Mathematics
page 90.
The first of these theorems states that an N-bit formal axiomatic system
cannot enable one to exhibit any specific object with a program-size
complexity greater than N + c.
Hal
is merely
acceptable. More than one acceptable successor state enables splitting.
Hal
the reference to Platonia.
Hal
Dear Jacques:
At 4/12/01, you wrote:
Maybe Hal, Russel and Jurgen should take this discussion to email and
just let us know how it turns out, because I get enough junk mail already.
I have run into those who do not like the side bar approach. I tend to
agree that it cuts all the others
incompleteness if the rule set is complex enough.
The transporter also injects a non deterministic aspect to SAS supporting
universes since while the SAS can show that the transporter exists and
functions it is not possible to tell when it has functioned.
Hal
, each ifc-FAS describes a finite discrete subset
of this space.
So it seems to me that the universe is a set on multiple scales.
If anyone is interested my model such as it currently stands is at:
http://www.connix.com/~hjr/model01.html
Hal
the empty fc-FAS decays to the Plenitude
which ultimately contains a string that answers the question.
Thus the initiator nothing becomes the axiom of the Plenitude.
Hal
on are definitely not repetitive. Therefore my
approach would not imply an objective time, but it does explicitly
contain continued non repetitive change.
Notice that my argument contains the idea of continues Yes or No.
So does: The Plenitude continues? Yes..
Hal
ensemble as containing all FAS in a
complete state.
My Superverse is an attempt at a consistent, but incomplete i.e. dynamic,
yet all possible FAS ensemble.
Its characteristics are a work in progress.
Hal
/everythinglistFAQ.html
Hal
)) is the fixed rule set of a particular universe acting on
the previous U(i).
2) U(i) grows in length [number of bits] randomly to avoid Chaitin's limit.
They non deterministicaly self sort because of (2) and U(i -1) contains R
and recognizes any PL(i) suitably larger than PL(i -1).
Hal
is where I started so many years ago. Thus my interest in producing
a map and measure of any progress that has been or may be made.
Hal
of number and just use the idea
of pattern. Numbers, strings, and universes would all be just
representations and pattern would be the fundamental.
Hal
Hal
necessary to recognize its
own possible successors. It simply accepts the first of these to exit the
machine.
Hal
Hal
but the links no longer work.
Also could someone provide a short history of the list for the FAQ?
Thanks
Hal
My current approach to this.
Once Nothing becomes Everything to answer its own stability, the question
of the stability of Nothing is no longer meaningful to Everything neither
is Nothing? itself, so Everything is now stuck as Everything.
Hal
I slipped a gear. I would expect X in my mechanical description to be more
on the order of 10 to the power 17. Roughly the proton radius divided by
1000 times the Planck Length.
Hal
interesting space so far explored is face centered cubic.
Hal
At 9/13/01, you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
This is a simple and short effort to present my current
ideas. To aid
communication it is not intended to follow an established means of
mathematical expression. I am completely out of time
Dear Juergen:
You demonstrate my point.
At 4/12/01, you wrote:
Hal, here is an infinite chain of provable unique theorems:
1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, 4+1=5, ...
First these are not theorems they are proof chains ending in theorems.
For example:
4 + 1 = is a proof chain and the theorem proved is: 5
Dear Bruno:
Sorry I missed this. Here is my response.
At , you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
Juergen: Hal, here is an infinite chain of provable unique theorems:
1+1=2, 2+1=3, 3+1=4, 4+1=5, ...
First these are not theorems they are proof chains ending in theorems.
If you reinterpret
for such universes
would quickly become open ended. This violates the Nothing Something
alternation.
The total system or Grand Ensemble is the Everything. It contains no
information and it can not contain enduring fully deterministic universes.
Hal
in logic to help my communication, but I believe
the above total Superverse be an infinite collection of FAS of all
complexities including those where the Rules are completely do not care.
Hal
a response to Juergen that may help. But here are a few
comments.
At 4/13/01, you wrote:
Basically, Hal believes a finite FAS by definition implies that each
theorem is constrained to be no more than N-bits in length.
Well more precisely that the shortest possible proof chain of any theorem
a constant. Thus
there can not be an infinite number of such constructions.
Hal
Of course
there will be many tautological relationships between the theorems,
but they're still distinct theorems.
And finite in number.
Hal
.
In essence a well structured and reviewed FAQ for this list might help the
entry of papers into the mainstream.
Hal
At 7/5/01, you wrote:
No - it has a different function. The FAQ is more like a review
article of the discussion on the email list, which in turn is like an
unrefereed journal. We do need
by default.
Thus we have an algorithm - the generating FAS - generating a very simple
object [so it is said] by an incredibly complex and elegant particular way.
Incredibly complex elegant proofs do not end in very simple objects.
Hal
of rules for identifying additional acceptable
symbol strings with the axiom as the basis.
1e) My FAS contains the rule that any acceptable string contains the
encoded FAS as a prefix.
I believe my FAS meets the requirements to make it a FAS in the accepted sense.
Hal
everything - no
information - and the everything's inability to determine its own stability
which causes it to oscillate with the Nothing.
Hal
such as the logistic equation and makes them in effect fully deterministic
in the way that modeling them on a finite computer forces them into closed
loops even if very large ones.
Hal
that their
complexity is bounded.
Does this shed light on this issue?
With this I agree. There are however only a finite number of theorems
with a finite complexity. So number theory is either finite in theorem
count or it is infinite in complexity.
Hal
frizzy fuzz.
Hal
Dear Bruno:
At , you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
The assumption leads to a contradiction when String N exceeds the
complexity allowed by Chaitin. More information must be added to the
cascade for it to continue.
Why ? Only if your FAS produces as output just the string N
and then stop
program has i.e. it own complexity plus a
constant. But a deterministic cascade is already known to be an everywhere
elegant program.
A contradiction is established unless the cascade stops but it can not stop.
The only way out is a spontaneous increase in the complexity of the FAS.
Hal
it is good that they can nevertheless
compute the respective perturbations that run the scanner-duplicator
alternation.
Yours
Hal
Dear Juergen:
At 4/11/01, you wrote:
Hal, Chaitin just says you cannot prove 20 pound theorems with 10 pound
axioms.
Please refer to Chaitin's The Unknowable generally and page 25, Chapter
V, and note 10 at the bottom of page 97 in particular.
But the infinite cascade of all provable theorems
possible universes? Max Tegmark mentioned
a somewhat vaguely defined set of ``self-consistent mathematical
structures,'' implying provability of some sort. The postings of Bruno
Marchal and George Levy and Hal Ruhl also focus on what's provable and
what's not.
Is provability really relevant
Dear Russell:
At 5/2/01, you wrote:
Incidently, I didn't mean to imply that this sort of modeling of
Knowlegde was inappropriate, only that there was no discussion as to
why one would want to model it in this particular way. Its really the
same as when Hal Ruhl (and I admit I'm putting words
as any isomorphism.
Well that is the current state of the argument.
Hal
Dear Hal
Since I was previously convinced by another that side bar discussions
should be avoided I will respond to this on the list.
At 4/12/01, you wrote:
Hal writes:
You are writing programs and they have a complexity. Chaitin limits this
complexity to no more than the complexity
incorporates a part of your UDA plus additional features.
Thank you again.
Hal
it has no basis
for comparison - previous and future meta patterns are not accessible.
Hal
Some initial musings on extending my one page model to cover SAS:
The only characteristics I can see that can distinguish various portions of
a given isomorphism are:
i) The way in which they interact during successive isomorphic links with
other portions of the isomorphism.
ii) The manner
result in a contradiction
cascade. However, a chain of discontinuities consisting of just shifts
clears all these contradictions including the original one.
Hal
the archive itself.
I am willing to start work on such a document and keep it posted on my web
site.
I could of course use some help.
Is there any interest in such a project?
Hal
actually
demonstrate that your substitute mechanism must exist. I put this in
another post.
Hal
At 3/19/01, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote:
As I understand it Comp says that all those physical universe isomorphic
couplings to the output of the UD somehow exist.
With comp there is no *physical
for thought in my own model.
I am going to start by filling in responses to the questions based on my
own model and to avoid any hint of rank I am going to initially assign them
response index suffix e.
Hal
At , you wrote:
Very nice. I think it can be useful indeed.
I guess you know
of at least some answers that are accepted by the
majority. I also think we should find a place to post questions that are
not given general acceptance. This could help prevent the process from
having a premature narrowing.
I will try to post my own initial offerings in a day or so.
Hal
At , you
as the cascade continues.
An increase in complexity of the FAS has a possible interpretation: The
cascade is reinitialized with the new theorem acting as the initiating
axiom and the added content of the FAS comes from a random oracle.
Hal
on the list of acronyms etc in
my current effort.
Hal
At 3/21/01, you wrote:
Hi Hal
The purpose of my post of september 99 was to clarify some of these issues and
terminologies. I am still not an expert except for my own position... I
certainly
could not speak for others.
A possible method
seems to be in a
universe with undecidables.
The Everything/Nothing alternation is in effect the transporter operating
at the lowest level.
Hal
that this is a Bayesian version of Ockham's Razor,
because you have to use this rather specialized definition of simple,
which is more restricted than what people usually mean when they are
discussing Ockham.
Hal Finney
the fact that it has always worked so far.
Hal Finney
] archive/latest/3615
X-Loop: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 2:39 PM -0800 3/28/02, Hal Finney wrote:
Bill Jefferys, [EMAIL PROTECTED], writes:
Ockham's razor is a consequence of probability theory, if you look at
things from a Bayesian POV, as I do
Sorry, I mis-edited that message. Here it is cleaned up for clarity:
Bill Jefferys writes, quoting Hal Finney:
But not always. You give the example of a strongly biased coin being
a simpler hypothesis than a fair coin. I don't think that is what
most people mean by simpler. If anything
Bill Jefferys wrote:
At 9:20 AM -0800 3/29/02, Hal Finney wrote:
That's true, but even so, a coin with a .95 chance of coming up heads
and a .05 chance of coming up tails is simpler by your definition
than a fair coin, right? Even though the parameter is not adjustable,
the presence
laws to make predictions.
So I don't think the argument against predictability based on infinite
recursion is successful. There are other ways of making predictions which
avoid infinite recursion. If we want to argue against predictability
it should be on other grounds.
Hal Finney
of the all
universe model than what most of our contributors have been discussing
lately. Are there flaws in this simple formulation which require a more
subtle approach?
Hal
of forgetting almost as fast as we learn, so the set of possible
worlds would have a very dynamic structure of different streams constantly
diverging and merging.
Hal
regarding
changes, free will, etc.
I believe QM is generally compatible with special relativity, but I am
not sure of the details. A no-collapse formulation should be even more
compatible since you don't have messy and non-physical measurements to
worry about.
Hal Finney
of statements, or even some
weaker ones, then I think this theory may be helpful in shedding light
on the issues we have dealt with.
Hal Finney
in question. That is a very natural
and powerful explanation for measure, but nothing similar exists for the
MWI. If there were an explanation for the MWI branch measures in terms
of a similar argument then I think this problem would be solved as well.
Hal
of causality.
Anyway, these are some of the issues and musings which make causality
of great interest to me. I hope to learn more about it in the next
few years.
Hal Finney
leading
up to a big crunch, time might reverse in the contracting phase.
Hal Finney
by simply telling them that
one is A and one is B, before they play. Again, with a symmetric game
I don't see how the amnesia or its absence would be relevant. Maybe I
am misunderstanding that aspect.
Hal Finney
that
introducing an environment has helped at all to solve the problem.
Hal Finney
.
Hal Finney
of the universe created by each
of these programs.
Hal Finney
of viewing the paradox based on multiverse models.
It is at http://www.finney.org/~hal/Newcomb.html.
Hal Finney
experience are explained by such
a recurrence.)
Hal Finney
or later recurrences should,
well, recur.
Hal Finney
Indication Axiom
and how there can be a universe model which is supported by the Doomsday
type argument but not contradicted by the SIA.
Hal Finney
case, to limit our
attention to Schmidhuber programs that produce output with an internal
time dimension that allows for conscious observers.
Hal Finney
-algorithmic
mathematical intuition). A multiverse built on computational engines
would be far more limited than one which includes all the endless richness
of mathematical set theory.
Hal Finney
universe it would improve the quality
of his predictions.
Hal Finney
Tim May wrote:
On Wednesday, September 4, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Hal Finney wrote:
There are a few objections which I am aware of which have been raised
against the MWI. The first is its lack of parsimony in terms of
creating a vast number of universes. We gain some simplification
objective reduction which makes state function collapse an
objectively real phenomenon and determines when and how it happens. But
if you're not willing to go that far, it is hard to deny the force of
Deutsch's thought experiment.
Hal Finney
.
If not, could the procedure be as simple as choosing to measure in
the X vs + bases, as is often done in quantum crypto protocols? If we
choose between X and + using an algorithmically incompressible method,
will that guarantee that the measured values are also incompressible?
Hal Finney
TOE is different from Schmidhuber's.
I also think that this discussion suggests that the infinite sets and
classes you are talking about do deserve to be considered mathematical
structures in the Tegmark TOE. But I don't know whether he would agree.
Hal Finney
Russell Standish writes:
[Hal Finney writes;]
So I disagree with Russell on this point; I'd say that Tegmark's
mathematical structures are more than axiom systems and therefore
Tegmark's TOE is different from Schmidhuber's.
If you are so sure of this, then please provide a description
Tegmark had in mind, it is an alternative ensemble theory that is
worth considering.
Hal Finney
/m3699.html.
My speculation was that he didn't like being known as just a supporter
of someone else's theory, that he wanted to come up with his own idea.
However in the recent Scientific American article co-authored with Max
Tegmark, they seemed to endorse the MWI pretty strongly.
Hal Finney
/science/space/29MULT.html about
how different theories lead to multiple universes. However neither
article goes so far as to seriously discuss the all-universe model.
The first article also has a link to a really nice animation showing
an inflation-style multiverse model.
Hal Finney
to imagine how to program a computer that would in fact generate our
experiences, at least in theory. And then go on and explain about
running all programs at once, etc.
Hal Finney
of a computer program or mathematical model.
Hal Finney
space is too large, you will never find the answer.
Hal Finney
I don't think I received the first of my two messages written today on
Wolfram, but it made it to the archive. In case anyone missed it I'll
just point to it rather than re-sending. It's available at
http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m4156.html.
Hal Finney
. Time in the context of a UTM should be
discrete, hence the largest cardinality relevant would be aleph-null,
the cardinality of the integers. Are you sure that c is necessary?
Hal Finney
301 - 400 of 644 matches
Mail list logo
