Re: on formally indescribable merde

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 14:06:17 -0800

Marchal wrote:

> George Levy wrote:
>
> >> BM:..Positive integers exists. Nothing else.
>
> >This is a integercentric statement if I ever saw one.
>
> Oh ! George. You don't met Pythagore, or Xenocrate, ...
> in the plenitude. Do you?
>
> >And Kroenecker was an old fuddy daddy.
>
> Old and even dead (here and now for sure). But fuddy ?
> I don't know. What does fuddy mean?
>

I had to ask my daughter for the definition of fuddy.... It occurs only with
daddy. A fuddy daddy is an old guy who is not "with it", slow mentally, and not
fashionable.... probably the way she sees me....

>
> Note that I don't appreciate what Kronecker (the man)
> did to Cantor.

Yes I was precisely referring to the treatment that Kronecker gave to Cantor.

>
> >The MWI gives us the chance to go all the way
> >and places each "I" at the center.
>
> How weird. That would have been a nice sum up of what I try to say;
> with COMP instead of MWI.

Could you please elaborate. Why can't you just say it in the context of COMP?
Or maybe you can say it.

>
> But COMP implies MWI (Note that Schmidhuber and me agree on that,
> but we disagree on what *are* the (many) worlds MW).

This is interesting and I just want to clarify this in my mind... You say that
you and Schmidhuber do not agree on the "size" of the MW...what it includes...

> Schmidhuber associate worlds to some programs, I associate
> worlds on machine's projection from shared computational histories
> The projection is first person plural.

Again to clarify... the word "machine" means that consciousness arises from
simple (Turing-like) computations. This is the COMP hypothesis.

I am not sure I understand "shared computational histories" .Why would past
computational states be relevant? A current state could be reached from
different past points (OMs) unless "merging" is not allowed...Isn't the current
state only of relevance? In addition, "shared computational histories" seems
to imply that two people have "now" the same thought pattern. Do you mean that
a "world" is the view (of the plenitude) by two observers sharing a "common
frame of reference?" How is this frame of reference defined? Should they have
the same thinking mechanism and laws of nature, but not necessarily the same
specific thoughts? (It's hard to know where to draw the line... One could argue
that two different people sharing the same laws of nature and thinking
mechanisms, but having different specific thoughts will perceive different
worlds...)

Why the word "projection?"

George
Received on Sat Mar 10 2001 - 14:17:09 PST