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

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:19:25 +0100

----- Original Message -----

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>

*> > > Why it fails is that you assume that all universes are wffs. The
*

*> > > underlying challenge of white rabbits and dragons is that the number
*

*> > > of non-wffs vastly outnumber the number of wffs. The assumption is
*

*> > > that that each non-wff corresponds to to a white rabbit universe. As
*

*> > > we discussed, and you have explained fairly clearly on your web page,
*

*> > > most non-wff universes are in fact indistinguishable from a wff
*

*> > > universe sufficiently close to it, so may be identified with it. In
*

*> > > that case, the number of non-wff universes corresponding to white
*

*> > > rabbits or dragons (ie actually recognisable paranormal phenomena) is
*

*> > > a vanishingly small proportion of the total.
*

*> >
*

*> > No! I am very sorry, but I have to correct this - every sentence above
*

is

*> > false!!! (Though stemming from one underlying misunderstanding, I
*

think.)

*> >
*

*> > One of the main reasons to use the formal systems approach is that it
*

solves

*> > the principal interpretation problem - some symbol strings build wff's,
*

some

*> > wff's are axiom sets, some axiom sets build theories, some theories
*

specify

*> > universes. In my first post to this thread (my web pages don't mention
*

*> > wff's - yet), wff's rather than non-wff's are selected - wff's are a
*

*> > precondition for the specification of *any* universe (with or without
*

*> > dragons/white rabbits); a non-wff is like a nonsense bitstring - totally
*

*> > irrelevant (except conceivably for some measure purposes).
*

*>
*

*> We're obviously running up against a misunderstanding here, which I
*

*> believe we should be able to resolve. Surely dragon universes are
*

*> nonsense bitstrings (the non wffs mentioned above), just ones that
*

*> happen to be close to a mathematical system, but not so close to be
*

*> indistinguishable.
*

By a nonsense bitstring, I meant a *totally* nonsense bitstring - one that

couldn't be interpreted as anything at all. A dragon universe would be

representable by a perfectly good mathematical system (humans in such

a universe could in principle develop a TOE for it, though it would be more

complex than ours), and in fact (in the terms of our earlier scheme) would

have more bits interpretable as visible phenomena than a normal universe,

and so (other things being equal) would have *less* nonsense (or non-visibly

interpretable) bits.

But the scheme I introduced at the top of this thread (and the one you say

you are criticising) has nothing to do with bitstrings. I can only suggest

you reread it, and take note of the fact that it clearly states that *only*

wff's are selected before *any* further analysis is done. (Non-wffs are

totally, repeat totally, irrelevant!)

Alastair

Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 10:44:21 PDT

Date: Tue, 26 Oct 1999 18:19:25 +0100

----- Original Message -----

From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>

is

think.)

solves

some

specify

By a nonsense bitstring, I meant a *totally* nonsense bitstring - one that

couldn't be interpreted as anything at all. A dragon universe would be

representable by a perfectly good mathematical system (humans in such

a universe could in principle develop a TOE for it, though it would be more

complex than ours), and in fact (in the terms of our earlier scheme) would

have more bits interpretable as visible phenomena than a normal universe,

and so (other things being equal) would have *less* nonsense (or non-visibly

interpretable) bits.

But the scheme I introduced at the top of this thread (and the one you say

you are criticising) has nothing to do with bitstrings. I can only suggest

you reread it, and take note of the fact that it clearly states that *only*

wff's are selected before *any* further analysis is done. (Non-wffs are

totally, repeat totally, irrelevant!)

Alastair

Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 10:44:21 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*