Le 18-juin-06, à 01:55, Russell Standish a écrit :
> A description is an infinite length (bit)string (bits in brackets,
> because any other alphabet will do also). This use does sometimes fly
> in face of what people expect,
Certainly.
> but I define this explicitly - it is a
> useful term.
>
> I'm just using the term "object" informally. The zero information
> object is in
> fact a set of descriptions.
?
>
>> I can understand "an infinite length object", like some putative
>> infinite physical universe for example. I can understand "a zero
>> information description"; for example the empty program or some empty
>> theory (I will address "theories" later though). It is harder for me
>> to
>> understand what can be the use of infinite description or a
>> zero-information object.
>>
>
> Only sets of descriptions (remember infinite length bitstrings) can
> have finite information.
?
>
> This looks like a terminological issue...
?
>> I think the only trouble with Schmidhuber, and then with many people
>> to
>> be sure, is that they find hard to take seriously enough the
>> distinction between first and third person point of views.
>> The UD is a (finite) program, and when it runs, like any program
>> running on some universal machine, it uses only at each time a finite
>> piece of its (potentially infinite) tape, etc.
>> Now, indeed, once you grasp that the probabilities of relative
>> histories relies on the first person point of view, the case can been
>> made that the infinite computations have a higher measure that the
>> finite one, so that somehow physicalities emerges from the infinite
>> set
>> of those infinite (crashing-like) computations.
>>
>
> You're talking here of his speed prior argument of course.
? (I was just saying that Schmidhuber miss the 1/3 distinction).
> I think he
> is wrong too, and agree with you, however I'm not so sure his
> arguments are this easy to dismiss.
Which argument in particular?
> It is related again to the ancient
> debate on ASSA vs RSSA - Schmidhuber's argument works if you assume
> just one computation is selected as your universe, which is rather
> contrary to functionalism (and COMP).
Remember Schmidhuber assumes comp.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jun 19 2006 - 05:14:14 PDT