
"The correct analogy [for Ubuntu] is rich people eating at Mom and Pop's Pizza instead of a nice restaurant etc." No, Mom and Pop's Pizza is still subject to market forces. Using Ubuntu is like a rich person eating at a homeless shelter. I continue to believe that an organization developing commercial software that has paying customers

Using Ubuntu is like eating donated food at a homeless shelter. The homeless people eating donated food aren't customers. The true customers are the philanthropists who donate the food and remove their felt uneasiness through acts of charity. That the food serves as a nutriment is a mere side effect not subject to market disciplines. Wouldn't

I'm using iPhone 4s. It is easy to use and I consider Androids to be flaky. The (mobile software) developers I know prefer iPhone, probably in part because iPhone executes native code, whereas Android has its slow virtual machine. No offense, but I find that it's generally lower class people who use Androids. I do not enjoy playing games on

>While Omega has a definite value, even its definition (algorithm to compute it) requires infinite information. It is irreducible. I still don't see things this way. Omega is reducible: the infinite digits of omega can be conceptually compressed back into the very definition whence it came. There is a trivial algorithm to approximate Omega that

I disagree Clayton. Chaitin's constant only requires a finite amount of information to define. Otherwise a definition couldn't even be given. It is not like most real numbers which require an infinite amount of information to specify (e.g. an endless Cauchy sequence of arbitrary numbers).

>Clayton: It is clear to me that padic numbers are in some sense more "fundamental" than the real numbers. Hmmm... I've never really thought about it before, but real numbers do bother me since any given real number may require an infinite amount of information to define. In fact, this is true for all but an infinitesimal proportion

This is kind of a late response but I noticed you guys were talking about two's complement. I wanted to note that the two's complement representation of 1, for example the 8bit quantity 11111111b, can be extended infinitely to the left so that it is arguably a mathematically acceptable representation of 1, and not just a convenient computer

In any case we can agree that physicists generally suck at philosophy. Something like 58% of physcists adopt MWI. But MWI has no known measurable consequences. I still choose to rely on the experimentation that reveals the 4D hyperbolic geometry of the universe, again and again, rather than what my feeble eyes perceive.

[quote]the petitio principii implicit in the manyuniverses interpretation[/quote] Clayton, I'm not a fan of MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) either. It is arbitrary, extremely weighty metaphysical baggage which has no scientific value. But I have trouble seeing the "petitio principii" fallacy there as you claim to. I simply see it as

>Clayton: Spherical and cylindrical geometries do have Euclidean representations NonEuclidean manifolds can be envisaged as lying in a Euclidean manifold with a greater number of dimensions. But this involves introducing additional assumptions and is of little practical value in relativity. >Clayton: which is why we can easily visualize them