From: Marc Geddes (marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 22:33:38 MST
--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 03:52:22PM +1300, Marc
> Geddes wrote:
> > Here was the technical part: I defined friendly
> sentients as
> > functions (computations) which take in particular
> kinds other
> > functions as input and modify them in a certain
> way. I said that
> > the 'particular kind' of functions operated on
> were approxmiations
> > to certain uncomputable functions. The 'certain
> way' they are
> > modified is that a poor approximation function is
> taken in as
> > input, and then a better approximation function is
> given as
> > output.
> >
> > Admittedly very general, but why is it 'trash'?
>
> Erm
>
> Here was the technical part: I defined physics
> as functions
> (computations, aka physical laws) which take in
> particular other
> kinds of (object) and modify them in a certain
> way. I said that
> the 'particular kind' of functions operated on
> were
> approxmiations to certain Great Unknowns. The
> 'certain way'
> they are modified is that a poor approximation
> function, which
> we don't have, is taken in as input, and then a
> better
> approximation function is given as output.
>
> Admittedly very general, but why is it 'trash'?
>
> Because it provides no actual data.
>
> FWIW, I stopped reading Geddes a long time ago, but
> this particular
> tripe struck me as so *obviously* insane that maybe
> pointing it out
> will do him some good.
>
> Yes, I also believe in Santa Claus.
>
> -Robin
>
When dealing with very very abstract ideas, you need
to read them very very carefully. Don't dismiss what
you obviously didn't understand my friend. It makes
*you* look like the idiot, not me.
You have replaced the word 'Friendly' with the word
'physics' in my paragraph. However you:
(a) Mis labelled one other very important phrase!
That phrase is what changed my paragraph from being
meaningful to meaningless.
(b) Failed to realise that the thing being described
is *the limit* of a *recursive function* and becomes
meaningful once the mathematical limit (which is the
phrase you failed to correctly describe) is defined.
O.K, so let me re-place the one phrase you
mis-labelled wih the correct phrase. I have taken
your paragraph, and replaced the one phrase you
mis-labelled with the correct phrase. Try reading my
paragraph again then, with the added proviso that you
realize that the thing being described is the *limit*
of a recursive function. I think you then find that
it makes a great deal of sense indeed:
"I defined physics as functions (computations, aka
physical laws) which take in particular other kinds of
(object) and modify them in a certain way. I said
that the 'particular kind' of functions operated on
were approxmiations to THE OMEGA POINT. The 'certain
way' they are modified is that a poor approximation
function, which we don't have, is taken in as input,
and then a better approximation function is given as
output."
Gotcha!
=====
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:51 MST