From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
But the problem with ontological type arguments is that they allow you to
conjure up anything you like by simply defining it as existing. If there is
a physical reality, things don't work like that. Statements of mathematics
and logic, however,
From: "Shane Legg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For sure. Indeed my recent paper on whether there exists an elegant theory
of prediction tries to address that very problem. In short the paper says
that if you want to convert something like Solomonoff induction or AIXI
into a nice computable system
From: "deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It should be a fairly obvious implementation of a nested quantum computer
to run any of these infinite processing programs. We will soon have oracle
type computers that can answer any question with the reservation that the
top level of the nest will have
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and which is not so
muddled as the crypto-idealist suggestions that any 'mathematical
structure'
or any 'program' defines a possible world.
Why that last phrase? There is a great elegance and simplicity in the idea
that all mathematical str
From: "John Ku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I actually think there is reason to think we are not living in a computer
simulation. From what I've read, inflationary cosmology seems to be very
well supported.
[...]
Once you admit that you (and your whole species/civilization, assuming that
it was real)
This is a good idea but some of the numbers seem wrong. In the first
scenario, the simulator is the computer connected to my brain (or the
software running on that computer, if you prefer); why should a synapse
count provide a good estimate of its complexity? And the complexity of
scenario fi
Richard Loosemore:
In fact, if it knew all about its own design (and it would, eventually), it
would check to see just how possible it might be for it to accidentally
convince itself to disobey its prime directive,
But it doesn't have a prime directive, does it? It has large numbers
of const
Or to put it another way: there is no rational basis for the belief that
Something Big
will happen in 2012, specifically. It is an apocalyptic date from an ancient
calendar
(let's call that an ADFAAC) that happens to coincide with the epoch of the
silicon
revolution on this planet. Well, as I
