Re: Combined response Re: Computing Randomness

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 21:57:21 -0700

Dear Bruno:

At , you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> >The assumption leads to a contradiction when "String N" exceeds the
> >complexity allowed by Chaitin. More information must be added to the
> >cascade for it to continue.
>
>Why ? Only if your FAS produces as output just the "string N"
>and then stop, then there would indeed be a contradiction.

That seems to be mostly what I said. Each cascade is a self contained
FAS. Each is a one trick pony. Each trick is a universe. Each step in the
trick is a state of that universe. It is a very very big pony show. The
result is universal computation including random history universes.

But cascades of this sort suffer the contradiction. The FAS has to grow -
the cascade gets an injection of complexity .

Now identify each cascade current step as actually a particular isomorphism
linked to a particular pattern in an ocean of patterns - my
Superverse. Each new step is a jump to a new pattern.

The cascade steps are shifts of the link to another pattern.

Hal
Received on Wed Apr 25 2001 - 19:36:16 PDT