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", > therefore > 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 greater measure. 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. Hal Finney