At 22:14 19/12/04 -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote:
>Do you mind then a little more non computability re the third person point
>of view as per my dynamic?
I don't understand your dynamic. As for the non-computability, remember
that with comp, anything like "the appearance" of a universe cannot be
emulated by a universal computer. I recall that with comp the mind-body
problem is partially reduce to the search of an explanation of the apparent
turing-emulability of our neighborhoods. This follows from the UDA
reasoning. It is related to the "hunting of the white rabbits".
>My kernels would be describable by natural numbers so are they actually
>natural numbers?
I don't know. Your notion of kernel has not been defined in a sufficiently
precise way so that I could figure out if it is reasonable to see them as
numbers. You didn't answer if we can see your kernels as "theories" and/or
"programs". More generally, I can attribute too much meaning to your
sentences; I really think you should invest in some standard basic theories
for helping you to make more precise statements which we could then
criticize more constructively.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri Dec 24 2004 - 07:07:00 PST