Dear Chris,
Your ideas are mostly uncontentious, but don't really raise
new issues. Most of these concepts have been discussed, not only on
this list, but also in papers by myself (the Occam paper), Bruno
Marchal, Juergen Schmidhuber and Max Tegmark, as well as Alistair
Malcolm's website.
Bruno has raised the issue that the "whole of mathematics" is actually
undefinable. In my work, I take this statement to mean recursively
enumerable axiomatic systems, which is strictly a subset of
mathematics. I believe when you use the term "finite", you actually
mean "recursively enumerable". But if someone can resolve this issue
in a different way, then that would be a new and interesting
contribution.
Cheers
Chris Simmons wrote:
>
> Hello. In reply, here's some new (?) stuff that I've been thinking about,
> which hopefully you find appropriate to this discussion - especially given
> that there has been a previous descussion about the ultimate theory of
> everthing possibly consisting of nothing more than all mathematical
> constructs.
>
... deleted - see the archives ....
>
> But, to be honest, I really don't know. What do you lot think?
>
>
> Chris Simmons.
> Don't bother, the web page is crap ;)
> http://www.york.ac.uk/~cps102
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu May 11 2000 - 18:51:04 PDT