Re: Combined response Re: Computing Randomness

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu Apr 26 04:39:58 2001

Hal wrote:

>That seems to be mostly what I said. Each cascade is a self contained
>FAS.

Until now I was believing that a cascade was a sort of proof. How could
a cascade be a FAS? And what do you mean by self contained FAS ?


>Each is a one trick pony.


Are you attempting to get the prize of the most surrealist post in this
list ?


>Each trick is a universe.


Why not, at this stage. It looks like I'm trying to get the prize of
patience in this list.


> 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.

If the histories are third person histories, Juergen and me will be sorry.
If the histories are first person histories, only Juergen will be sorry.
But a meaningful sentence in an ocean of surrealist sentences just
makes that surrealism still more surrealist, you know.


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


You are playing with words to put sense into what has been show
senseless. Even with your "FAS" are not cascade. (Or I miss something
big).
You should'nt change the meaning of words in the middle of the argument.


>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.

You lose me completely here. Look Hal, I think it would help us a lot,
if you gives us a glossary with the precise definition of
FAS (+ three simple exemple of FAS)
CASCADE (+ three simple exemple of cascade).
SUPERVERSE (what is that?).

I am not asking you poetical descriptions but real precise short
definition
to work with.

I know you appreciate Chaitin's books. But when Chaitin talks on FAS, he
clearly said "axioms and rules of inference". You seem to be unaware of
that.
That is why I ask you to tell us what do *you* mean by
FormalAxiomaticSystem.

Bruno
Received on Thu Apr 26 2001 - 04:39:58 PDT