OK, then the observable universe has a finite description length. We don't
need to describe anything else to model it, so by universe I mean only the
observable part.
But, what good is it to only have finite description of the observable
part, since new portions of the universe enter the
To clarify what I mean by observable universe, I am including any part that
could be observed in the future, and therefore must be modeled to make accurate
predictions. For example, if our universe is computed by one of an enumeration
of Turing machines, then the other enumerations are outside
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To clarify what I mean by observable universe, I am including any part that
could be observed in the future, and therefore must be modeled to make
accurate predictions. For example, if our universe is computed by one of an
--- On Thu, 9/4/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, my only remaining objection is that while the universe
*could* be
computable, it seems unwise to me to totally rule out the
alternative.
You're right. We cannot prove that the universe is computable. We have evidence
like Occam's
Matt, I have several objections.
First, as I understand it, your statement about the universe having a
finite description length only applies to the *observable* universe,
not the universe as a whole. The hubble radius expands at the speed of
light as more light reaches us, meaning that the
--- On Wed, 9/3/08, Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Abram Demski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Computation as an explanation of the universe (was Re: [agi]
Recursive self-change: some definitions)
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2008, 7:35 PM
Matt, I have
