> >
> >I'll try to put it in more quantitative form. I assume I can give a
> >"measure" of the set of possible Universes and separate it into three
> >classes:
> >A : the subset of universes without conscious beings
> >B : the subset of universes containing SAS apparently observing a
> >environment without physical laws.
> >C : the subset of universes containing SAS apparently observing a
> >environment with physical laws.
> >
> >It seems that we live in a C-Universe. Why?
> >
> >I guess (I may be wrong) that if you POSTULATE the existence of a reality
> >obeying physical laws, you could hope to demonstrate
> >m(A)>>m(C)>>m(B),
> >because it is very improbable that conscious beings doing repeated physical
> >experiments would be unable to unveil the existence of physical laws (for
> >example by finding systematically very improbable results where the
> >statistical distributions predicted by QM are never recovered).
> >The observation of A is excluded by the (generalized) anthropic principle,
> >so we explain satisfactorily why we see "C".
> >
> >However, I think that the "everything computable is realized" hypothesis
> >would predict m(A)>>m(B)>>m(C), and so the reason why we are in C is much
> >more mysterious with this hypothesis. Of course if you think you can
> >justify also m(C)>>m(B) with comp, it would have the bonus to explain why
> >physical laws exist (which must be postulated in the first stage), but I am
> >really not convinced of that.
> My feeling, Gilles, is that you have an excellent understanding of my
> point. Now, for some reason you don't believe in comp, and for that 
> reason, you take my counter-intuitive result as an opportunity to throw 
> away
> the comp hypothesis.
> Honestly that is a little too premature for me.
> But I'm very glad you realise the bonus: an explanation of the origin of 
> physical laws.
> But indeed, with comp (which is admitted by numerous people including 
> Schmidhuber, Deutsch, all cognitive scientist, etc.) we must justify
> why m(C) >> m(B).
> I don't pretend it is easy. I feel it worthwhile.
> You can try to prove that comp => m(C) << m(B). In that case, comp
> will be refuted, once and for all. 
> You can try to prove that comp => m(C) >> m(B). In that case, you
> will solve the mind body problem and the problem of the origin of the
> physical laws.
> BTW, is it clear that with the quantum MWI we have prove that m(C) >> 
> m(B).
> I guess the decoherent approach has put some light on that problem. But
> here too, it is still not clear how far we are from a clearcut solution...
> Bruno.

I believe that the statement m(C) >> m(B) is related to the problem of
why we should believe we have evolved by Darwinian evolution rather
than just created "ex-nihilo" as Creation Scientists would have us believe.

Dr. Russell Standish                    Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW                       Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052                             Fax   9385 7123
Australia                               [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centre                   http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks

Reply via email to