From: Robin Lee Powell (rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 21:05:10 MST
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
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://intelligence.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT