Hi John,
Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:20, John Mikes a écrit :
> Stathis, Bruno,
>
> This summary sounds fine if I accept to 'let words go'. Is there a
> way to
> 'understand' (=use with comprehension) the 'words' used here without
> the
> 'technical' acceptance of the theoretical platform?
I am not sure. Avoiding technical acceptance of a theoretical platform
can be done for presenting result, not really for discussing about
them.
> There are sacrosanct 'words' used without explaining them (over and
> over again?, BUT
> at least once for the benefit of that newcomer 'alien' who comes from
> another vista' ,
> like
>
> (absolute?) probability - is there such a thing as probability, the
> figment that
> if it happend x times it WILL happen the (X+one)th time as well?
This is inductive inference, not probability.
> combined with
> the statistical hoax of counting from select members in a limited
> group the version
> 'A' models and assuming its 'probability'?
That is why to use probability and/or any uncertainty measure we have
to be clear about the axioms we are willing to admit, at least for the
sake of some argument.
>
> observer moment (observer, for that matter), whether the moment is a
> time-concept
> in it and the 'observer' must be conscious (btw: identifying
> 'conscious')
The expression "observer moment" has originated with Nick Bostrom, in
context similar to the doomsday argument. I would call them "first
person observer moment". I will try to explain how to translate them in
comp.
>
> number (in the broader sense, yet applied as real integers) (Btw: are
> the 'non-Arabic'
> numbers also numbers? the figments of evolutionary languages
> alp[habetical or not?
> Is zero a number? Was not in "Platonia" - a millennium before its
> invention(?!)
Number, by default are the so called "natural number": 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,
...
They correspond to the number of strokes in the following sequence of
sets:
{ }, { I }, { II }, { III }, { IIII }, { IIIII }, { IIIIII }, {
IIIIIII }, { IIIIIIII }, etc.
Zero is a number by definition. But this is just a question of
definition. For the Greeks number begins with three. Like the adjective
"numerous" still rarely applies when only two things are referred too.
>
> The 'extensions' of machine into (loebian etc.) [non?]-machine, like
> comp into the nondigital
? comp does not go out of the digital, except from a first person point
of view (but that is an hard technical point, to be sure).
In "english" I would define a "universal (digital) machine", by a
digital machine potentially capable of emulating (simulating perfectly)
any other digital machine from a description of it. Today's computers
and interpreters are typical example of such "hard" and soft
(respectively) universal machines. Now a universal digital machine is
lobian when she "knows" that she is universal. Defining "knows" has to
be a bit technical. This is not at all an official definition. Look at
my SANE04 paper for a more offical definition. It is related to a sort
of placebo phenomenon. If we continue this conversation there will be
plenty of time to make this clear. But you are right to ask for
definition, or for more explanations.
> and mixing our mental interpretations with what has been
> interpreted (unknowable).
Don't hesitate to come back on this? Out of context I could say to much
things and then have to repeat it.
>
> Just some picked examples promoting a not-so-technical glossary for
> the rest of the world
Make a list, and send it. So we can think about. Not all
conversation-threads ask for the same level of precision.
Bruno
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2/3/07, Stathis Papaioannou <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>
> wrote:Bruno Marchal writes:
>>
>> > What is correct, and has been singled out by Stathis, is that comp
>> > eludes the "material implementation" problem, given that we take all
>> > abstract possible relationship between those objects, and they are
>> all
>> > well defined as purely number theoretical relations. Note that this
>> is
>> > something I have tried to explain to Jacques Mallah sometimes ago,
>> but
>> > without much success. This does not make much sense in ASSA
>> approaches,
>> > but, like George Levy I think, I don't believe in absolute
>> probability
>> > of being me, or of living my current "observer moment". Such a
>> > probability can be given the value one (said George) but it is
>> close of
>> > saying that the universe is here, which tells us nothing, really.
>> It is
>> > like answering "who are you?" by I am me".
>>
>> I'm satisfied with this summary. The physical implementation problem
>> is not
>> a problem when considering abstract machines.
>>
>> Stathis Papaioannou
>>
>>
>
>
> >
>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Feb 05 2007 - 10:14:57 PST