- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:48:08 +1000

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*>
*

*>
*

*> Le 26-sept.-06, à 16:03, Russell Standish a écrit :
*

*>
*

*> > I would say also that interpretations could be inconsistent,
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> ? ? ?
*

*> I guess you are using the word "interpretation" in some non standard
*

*> way.
*

*> It would help us, and you, if you could work on a glossary.
*

*>
*

"Interpretation of something" means "meaning an observer attaches to

something".

Is this nonstandard? I wouldn't have thought so.

*>
*

*> > Indeed - however we do have a difference in emphasis. Yours is towards
*

*> > more formal models, but with obscure modeling relations,
*

*>
*

*> My emphasis is on machine which are formal by construction, and the
*

*> obscure modeling relation are old and new theorems in mathematical
*

*> logic. It is just applied mathematics.
*

*> The modelling relations are strange and mysterious, but this is just
*

*> because Godel and Lob theorems are somehow themselves strange and
*

*> mysterious.
*

But so are your postulates, for example the Theatetus notion of

knowledge is far from obvious. I can follow the logic as a formal

system, but I struggle to make sense of it (interpret it).

*>
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> > But is this 1-3 distinction implicit within your statement of COMP?
*

*> > I'm not sure that it is.
*

*>
*

*> I think it is, and the following quote makes me thing you believe this
*

*> too, at least in the quantum framework, when you say:
*

*> <<Collapse is conceived of as a physical process, and as such is
*

*> problematic. Nonphysical collapse is just the 1 POV of the
*

*> Multiverse. That's all I'm talking about.>>
*

*>
*

But I have an explicit 1-3 distinction in the format of my PROJECTION

postulate, and that quoted statement is taken in that context.

Obviously I have no objection to the 1-3 distinction, but I failed to

see how it follows explicitly from AR+CT+YD, or even from "I am a

machine" (in the Turing sense).

*> > It is not new, it underlies all of Chapter 2 of my book, and also of
*

*> > "Why Occams Razor". Perhaps I'm guilty of assuming it without
*

*> > explicitly stating it, but by way of challenge can you give me a piece
*

*> > of knowledge that doesn't come in the form of a string?
*

*>
*

*> Knowledge comes from third person finite strings, with a measure
*

*> determined by *some* infinite strings (the non halting immaterial
*

*> computations) generating them.
*

*>
*

But finite strings are just sets of infinite strings.

*> > It is
*

*> > certainly hard, given we live on the opposite sides of a digital world
*

*> > - a record of a telephone conversation we have will be a a string of
*

*> > bits, as will any emails we use, any my book left my hands in the form
*

*> > of a string of bits and so on.
*

*>
*

*> OK, but that are finite strings conceived and manipulated (by your
*

*> computer and your brain with some high level comp assumption) as
*

*> numbers. Most test editor manipulate a structure of finite strings
*

*> together with a concatenation or substitution structure. Again this is
*

*> infinitely richer that your set of all infinite strings.
*

*>
*

No - sets have subsets, and all finite strings can be found as a

subset of the set of all infinite strings.

*> > I use the usual one (excluded middle), and I don't use any infinity
*

*> > axiom that I'm aware of.
*

*>
*

*> Now I am very confused. I thought you were assuming infinite strings. A
*

*> glossary would really help, I am not sure you are not changing the
*

*> meaning of your term from paragraph to paragraph.
*

*>
*

You introduced the term infinity axiom. If by a infinity axiom you

mean the existence of infinite strings, or the existence of infinite

sets, then yes I have an infinity axiom.

*> > Yes - I appreciate the ontological difference. I would say that only
*

*> > "Nothing" exists (in ontological meaning). Strings and sets of strings
*

*> > only exist in the same sense that the number "1" exists.
*

*>
*

*> This contradict the definition of "Nothing" you gave us.
*

*>
*

The set of all strings is a model of the Nothing (or equivalently the

Everything). It is meant to be the ultimate model, capturing all that

is possible to know about it.

*> >
*

*> > About the only difference I see is that the measure might be
*

*> > different...
*

*>
*

*>
*

*> And that *is* the key issue, I think.
*

*>
*

*> > I more or less always assumed this. Either COMP is more specialised
*

*> > (you can derive some my postulates from COMP, and others are compatible
*

*> > with it), or COMP is the only way of deriving these same postulates,
*

*> > or COMP in some way contradicts these postulates.
*

*>
*

*> As you admit yourself there is a lot of work to get enough precision in
*

*> your approach to compare it with the consequence of the
*

*> computationalist hypothesis.
*

*> As I do have a lot of work to compare the comp-physics with the
*

*> experimental physics.
*

*>
*

Yes - in that respect, my work ties more closely to physics. However,

there is a distinct difference between my string ensemble and

Schmidhuber's speed prior one, particularly with respect to randomness.

*> Sometimes I define strong comp by saying yes to the doctor, and weak
*

*> comp by accpetoing your child marry someone who has say yes to the
*

*> doctor. Surely you have an opinion on that, no?
*

*>
*

To be quite frank, I don't know what to make of that. What does it

matter who my child marries, so long as they are happy with that.

Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 07:48:08 +1000

On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 11:46:20AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

"Interpretation of something" means "meaning an observer attaches to

something".

Is this nonstandard? I wouldn't have thought so.

But so are your postulates, for example the Theatetus notion of

knowledge is far from obvious. I can follow the logic as a formal

system, but I struggle to make sense of it (interpret it).

But I have an explicit 1-3 distinction in the format of my PROJECTION

postulate, and that quoted statement is taken in that context.

Obviously I have no objection to the 1-3 distinction, but I failed to

see how it follows explicitly from AR+CT+YD, or even from "I am a

machine" (in the Turing sense).

But finite strings are just sets of infinite strings.

No - sets have subsets, and all finite strings can be found as a

subset of the set of all infinite strings.

You introduced the term infinity axiom. If by a infinity axiom you

mean the existence of infinite strings, or the existence of infinite

sets, then yes I have an infinity axiom.

The set of all strings is a model of the Nothing (or equivalently the

Everything). It is meant to be the ultimate model, capturing all that

is possible to know about it.

Yes - in that respect, my work ties more closely to physics. However,

there is a distinct difference between my string ensemble and

Schmidhuber's speed prior one, particularly with respect to randomness.

To be quite frank, I don't know what to make of that. What does it

matter who my child marries, so long as they are happy with that.

-- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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.domain.name.hidden To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---Received on Fri Sep 29 2006 - 19:43:20 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST
*