Wei Dai wrote:
BTW, isn't the justification for universal prediction taken in this paper
kind of opposite to the one you took? The abstract says The problem,
however, is that in many cases one does not even have a reasonable guess
of the true distribution. In order to overcome this problem
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz [The Monadology, 64-66] wrote:
But the machines of nature, namely, living bodies, are still machines
in their smallest parts ad infinitum. It is this that constitutes the
difference between nature and art, that is to say, between the divine
art and ours. And the Author
Karl Svozil, Randomness Undecidability in
Physics, World Scientific, 1993, [chapters 10.2 - 10.5]
also speaks about the simulaton argument.
It is not unreasonable - he says - to speculate about the
logico-algebraic structure of automaton universes (universes
computer generated).
If there
Dear Juergen:
I certainly currently agree with the idea that a particular universe is a
cellular automaton but one that is subject to true noise from an external
source. This does not preclude universes that are internally computational
rather they are required to balance those that are not
4 matches
Mail list logo
