I appreciate Juergen's view. In essence he is assuming a nonuniform distribution on the ensemble of descriptions, as though the ensemble of descriptions are produced by the FAST algorithm. This is perhaps the same as assuming a concrete universe.

## Advertising

In my approach (which didn't have this technical nicety), the ensemble of descriptions obeyed a uniform distribution. The ultimate observed distribution is obtained by equivalencing distibutions according to the observer's interpretation. If the observer is a universal Turing machine, the Universal Prior results. Now humans appear to equivalence class random strings in a most un-Turing machine like way. (ie random (incompressible) strings usually contain no information). This may or may not be true of conscious beings in general. Occam's razor still follows as a kind of theorem regardless of whether the initial distribution were uniform or had the character of being generated by FAST. However the FAST distribution would weight pseudo random descriptions far higher than truly random strings, assuming the observer had a magical way of distinguishing them, which is a different result from assuming an initial uniform distribution. Aside from the philosophical issues of whether one likes a concrete universe (a la Schmidhuber) or not, there is a vague possibility of testing the issue through the prediction Schmidhuber makes about random sequences being found to be pseudorandom in nature. I suppose I raise the banner for the opposing camp - uniform distribution over the ensemble, no concrete universe and true randomness requires for consciousness and free-will. Cheers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Where does all the randomness come from? > ... > > Is there an optimally efficient way of computing all the "randomness" in > all the describable (possibly infinite) universe histories? Yes, there > is. There exists a machine-independent ensemble-generating algorithm > called FAST that computes any history essentially as quickly as this > history's fastest algorithm. Somewhat surprisingly, FAST is not slowed > down much by the simultaneous computation of all the other histories. > > It turns out, however, that for any given history there is a speed > limit which greatly depends on the history's degree of randomness. > Highly random histories are extremely hard to compute, even by the optimal > algorithm FAST. Each new bit of a truly random history requires at least > twice the time required for computing the entire previous history. > > As history size grows, the speed of highly random histories (and most > histories are random indeed) vanishes very quickly, no matter which > computer we use (side note: infinite random histories would even require > uncountable time, which does not make any sense). On the other hand, > FAST keeps generating numerous nonrandom histories very quickly; the > fastest ones come out at a rate of a constant number of bits per fixed > time interval. > > Now consider an observer evolving in some universe history. He does not > know in which, but as history size increases it becomes less and less > likely that he is located in one of the slowly computable, highly random > universes: after sufficient time most long histories involving him will > be fast ones. > > Some consequences are discussed in > http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/toesv2/node39.html > > Juergen Schmidhuber > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967 UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965 Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks ----------------------------------------------------------------------------