On 3/19/07, Russell Standish <lists.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 01:03:04PM +1100, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > I don't mean the white rabbits from the Turing machine, I mean the ones
> > outside it. If we accept that an abstract machine can just exist,
> without
> > benefit of a separate physical reality, why not also accept that
> > non-computational talking white rabbits can also just exist? That is,
> why
> > should computations have a privileged ontological status in the
> everything?
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou
> >
> >
>
> That's not an assumption I make. The only thing given "priveleged
> ontological status" are the descriptions (or infinite length strings -
> binary or in your choice of alphabet). These are not the
> outputs of any computational process, although they can be considered
> as generated dynamically by a UD if you wish (although not necessary).
OK, I just read "bitstring" as something generated by a computer, but I see
that you deliberately differentiate the descriptions from the Schmidhuber
ensemble, making your theory more general:
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node2.html
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mar 19 2007 - 07:34:42 PDT