Ah - you've just pointed out the fallacy in my last post. I retract
it. This is a nicer problem than I had imagined.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilles HENRI [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 1999 4:35 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Why physical laws
> > I'm just skimming atthe moment, but the idea of " universes
> >containing SAS apparently observing a environment without physical laws."
> >seems absurd. How can a process occur, such as the process of observing,
> >without athe necessary sequence appearing to obey laws?
> James, here you assume that the conscious process derives from physical
> laws, exactly what I support. In the "everything computable exists",
> nothing prevents to generate Universes where conscious structures do
> but don't have a proper representation of their environment (which may not
> exist at all..). That's just like producing fake images with computers.
> What I fear is that these universes would be much more numerous than those
> where conscious structures have
> this proper representation, just as if you generate all possible images,
> you will get
> 1) mostly non-interpretable images
> 2) interpretable images not corresponding to realistic situations (flying
> elephants and so on...)
> 3) images corresponding to realistic situations.
> with of course n(1)>>n(2)>>n(3)
> But nature produces only type (3) images...