[FoRK] That's a bunch of Malarkey
Gregory Alan Bolcer
greg at bolcer.org
Tue Jan 20 11:45:15 PST 2015
Lol. No clue, but I embrace the long history of theoretical mathematicians
and game theorists who use God as the representation that if there is
perfect knowledge or if there exists some value that is true outside of an
existing construct, then they can define it as God. It's a really useful
technique for consistency and completeness proofs. In fact, for any given
system of logic (an maybe axiomatic scientific principles) you can prove
something exists outside of it that can be determined to have property X.
I just decided to define X as 42. That and I'm a big Gödel fan.
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:26 AM, Stephen D. Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> On 1/20/15 7:16 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>> In Information Theory, don't you have to have a minimum of a N+1 bit
>> axiomatic theory to prove that something in an N-bit axiomatic space is the
>> simplest, least complex, or elegant (the rigid, formal definition)?
>> I was just poking fun at Stephen.
> Heh. And I was making fun back. But you were just throwing softballs.
> How about a real quandry to puzzle out?
>> Supposed I created a game where I had a variable X and I assigned it the
>> value 42.
>> 42 has meaning outside of your experiment. I don't think X should equal
>> No, I said I assigned it 42, but I didn't define equals yet. It's my
> What does the symbol 42 mean in your experiment? What is a variable?
> (Variable is a great callsign by the way. Is variable Variable? Does he
> have the ammo for 42?)
> And what is God doing in this experiment? That's always an important
> Without knowing the probability of heaven happening, this problem is ill
> defined as posed.
> Your allusion to life, the universe, and everything is really putting a
> lot on Variable's shoulders. Must be some plot line.
>> "Those who make the rules win" -- Plato
>> On 1/20/2015 12:01 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>>> On Jan 19, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Gregory Alan Bolcer <greg at bolcer.org>
>>>> Occam's razor is a scientific principle, aka a philosophical heuristic
>>>> problem solving. Pascal's payout matrix is solved using a computation.
>>> Occam’s Razor is a bit more than a philosophical heuristic though it is
>>> often presented that way. It is also an expression of a general
>>> mathematical theorem, admittedly proved millennia after the existence of
>>> the heuristic. Occam’s Razor, used correctly, is not excludable in any
>>> rigorous discussion.
> FoRK mailing list
greg at bolcer.org, http://bolcer.org, c: +1.714.928.5476
More information about the FoRK