Bruno Marchal wrote:
I agree with George, but note that I arrive at an equivalent assertion without using that "lower levels have lower complexity and therefore higher measure". That is possible, but the problem is that it is a priori hard to estimate the "dumbness" of the universal dovetailer which is quite capable to entangle high complexity programs with low complexity programs, so that the "multiplication" related to low-complexity can be inherited to high-complexity (due to dovetailing). But you may be right, I have not proved that "a" UD could be that dumb!
Gosh, Bruno, I don't understand what you are saying. Maybe I am too naive! Or maybe our background conceptions are too different so even if the language is the same it does not make sense. For one I don't see how a first person experience needs to depend on a UD. My view is that the "observer-experience" simply consists in the (virtual) transitions from one "observer-moment" to another where the transition is filtered by having to be consistent with the "observer-state." Note how the observer bootstraps himself into consciousness out of the plenitude. So maybe my UD is the "nul UD" : it is the maximally dumb UD.
But then why are you sure that lower complexity have higher measure?
I understand intuitively but how would you prove that without introducing a special UD?
A "maximally dumb" UD? I am not sure I understand.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
