- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:41:25 +1000

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:12:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

*> It is a good occasion to sum up the main differences and the main
*

*> similarities between Standish, Schmidhuber, Lewis, Tegmark, Levy,
*

*> Ruhl, Mitra, Mazer, Finney, ... and my own. All approach are indeed
*

*> form of modal realism, and this is indeed what the everything-list is
*

*> all about.
*

*>
*

Thanks Bruno - this is a useful summary

*>
*

*> Standish is not yet enough clear about its assumptions, but seems to
*

*> get a pretty derivation of schroedinger equation, which is an
*

*> improvement. He does assume time, with the topology of the reals, which
*

*> is my main critics. The 1-3 distinction is present and used in an
*

*> anthropic way, but I have not yet understood it precisely.
*

TIME needs to be assumed for the White Rabbit solution, but not the

topology of the reals. The latter assumption is _purely_ to make

contact with the traditional formulation of the Schroedinger

equation. What I sincerely suspect is that the real topology is the

wrong one, and that the Schroedinger equation will need to be modified

to take account of whatever topology time really has.

I cannot see that TIME is a problematic assumption. In many systems -

eg computationalism, TIME is a theorem, a consequence of other

assumptions. More problematic is what precisely it means - hence

discussions of topology etc.

What I claim is that a computationalist model is possible of my

theory. It would probably be useful to do this, as it might shed light

on where my assumptions come from, and also probably forge a link

between my work and Bruno Marchal's for example. I feel a little

inadequate for the task - but perhaps with the eyes and brains of this

group to correct me, it can be done. And you never know - I may be

wrong on the possibility of a computationalist model, which would be a

suprising result in itself.

*>
*

*> Actually I think it would be quite useful if, like we have done
*

*> "joining post", each of us could summarize its own approach in a
*

*> reasonably short post. The present post was just for showing you the
*

*> richness of the our hunting-dragon in the everything (modal) landscape.
*

It probably requires a series of manifestos, which can then be

prodded, poked and ripped apart, and then maybe melded by this

list. We have manifestos already for Tegmark, Schmidhuber (actually 2

of these), Marchal, Malcolm and myself. Anyone else like to

contribute? I'm not sure I really understand Hal Finney's position,

for example.

Give me a few more months, and I'll have a draft manuscript of my

book ready for you to sharpen your intellectual knives on.

Received on Thu Jun 16 2005 - 20:45:25 PDT

Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 10:41:25 +1000

On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 06:12:35PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Thanks Bruno - this is a useful summary

TIME needs to be assumed for the White Rabbit solution, but not the

topology of the reals. The latter assumption is _purely_ to make

contact with the traditional formulation of the Schroedinger

equation. What I sincerely suspect is that the real topology is the

wrong one, and that the Schroedinger equation will need to be modified

to take account of whatever topology time really has.

I cannot see that TIME is a problematic assumption. In many systems -

eg computationalism, TIME is a theorem, a consequence of other

assumptions. More problematic is what precisely it means - hence

discussions of topology etc.

What I claim is that a computationalist model is possible of my

theory. It would probably be useful to do this, as it might shed light

on where my assumptions come from, and also probably forge a link

between my work and Bruno Marchal's for example. I feel a little

inadequate for the task - but perhaps with the eyes and brains of this

group to correct me, it can be done. And you never know - I may be

wrong on the possibility of a computationalist model, which would be a

suprising result in itself.

It probably requires a series of manifestos, which can then be

prodded, poked and ripped apart, and then maybe melded by this

list. We have manifestos already for Tegmark, Schmidhuber (actually 2

of these), Marchal, Malcolm and myself. Anyone else like to

contribute? I'm not sure I really understand Hal Finney's position,

for example.

Give me a few more months, and I'll have a draft manuscript of my

book ready for you to sharpen your intellectual knives on.

-- *PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you may safely ignore this attachment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile) Mathematics 0425 253119 (") UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST
*