Brent Meeker writes:
> >>From: "Hal Finney" [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Yes, I think it is enough that I have thought of the concept! Or more
> >accurately, I think it is enough that the concept is thinkable-of.
> Why bother with the computer at all. Since you're just conceptualizing the
> computer (it is actually going to do anything) and all the computer would do
> would be to produce some other bit-string, given the input bit-string; why not
> just think of all possible bit-strings. Isn't that what Bruno's UDA does -
> generate all possible bit strings.
> But since they only have to be "thinkable-of", it seems all this talk about
> bit-strings and computers is otiose. The universe is "thinkable-of",
> it exists.
Yes, I think that is true too. But the bit strings, interpreted as
programs, are crucial for the whole theory to be able to make predictions.
The idea is that the bit string is a compressed representation of the
universe. Only universes which are lawful are compressible. Hence,
lawful universes can be represented by small bit strings, which have
You are right that our universe exists, as its literal, expansive,
redundant self; but it also exists in the form of the many different
programs that would generate it. Only the shortest such programs make
a significant contribution to the measure, so the long-form, literal
representation of the universe doesn't even matter.
Without the concept of bit strings and computers, we have no basis for
saying that more lawful universes have greater measure than random and
incompressible ones. This would eliminate one of the great potential
strengths of the all-universe hypothesis (AUH), that it offers an
explanation for why we live in a lawful universe.