> It seems we're losing track of the original objection, which is to say that: > 1. everything exists (all relationships are equally valid, all worlds > exists, you can string 'snapshots in time' together any way you wish - with > a glass unsmashing or whatever - and all are equally likeley, as all exist > with a probability off one.)
But of course they are NOT equally likely (a major point of the 1997 paper). > and 2. WAP (we see a stable environment suited to us because we otherwise > wouldn't be here to see it). > ...seem to explain the entire universe, except in that there's nothing > stopping temporary minor abberations such as a flying rabbit. To repeat, given the universal Solomonoff-Levin distribution U, the simple universes (those with short algorithms) are much more likely. That's why flying rabbits are so improbable. Juergen
