From: Marc Geddes (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 22:33:38 MST
--- Robin Lee Powell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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'?
> 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
> 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
> 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.
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
Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT