Le 08-août-06, à 05:34, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit :

> Bruno Marchal writes (quoting SP):
>>> ...a controlled
>>> experiment in which measure can be turned up and down leaving
>>> everything else
>>> the same, such as having an AI running on several computers in 
>>> perfect
>>> lockstep.
>> I think that the idea that a lower measure OM will appear more complex
>> is a consequence of Komogorov like ASSA theories (a-la Hal Finney,
>> Mallah, etc.). OK?
> I understand the basic principle, but I have trouble getting my mind 
> around
> the idea of defining a measure when every possible computation exists.

I am not sure I understand. All real number exist, for example, and it 
is the reason why we can put a measure on it. All computations exist 
(this is equivalent with arithmetical realism) yet some are or at least 
could be relatively more frequent than others.

>> I agree from some 1 pov. But 1 plural pov here would lead to some 
>> "Bell
>> inequalities violation". That is: sharable experiments which shows
>> indirectly the presence of some alternate computations.
> I don't understand this statement. I am suggesting that the computers 
> are
> running exactly the same program - same circuitry, same software, same
> initial conditions, all on a classical scale. I don't see that there 
> is any way
> for the AI to know which computer he was running on (if that question 
> is
> even meaningful) or how many computers were running.

I know it looks counterintuitive, but an AI can know which computer is 
running and how many they are. It is a consequence of comp, and the UDA 
shows why. The answer is:
the computer which is running are the relative universal number which 
exist in arithmetical platonia (arithmetical truth is already a 
universal video game, if you want, and it is the simplest). How many 
are they? 2^aleph_zero.
I have already explain it here:

It is a key point and we can come back on it if you have some 

>>> If I
>>> were the AI the only advantage I can think of in having multiple
>>> computers running
>>> is for backup in case some of them broke down; beyond that, I 
>>> wouldn't
>>> care if there
>>> were one copy or a million copies of me running in parallel.
>> Except, as I said above, for the relative probabilities. But this is
>> equivalent with accepting a well done back-up will not change your
>> "normal" measure.
> Yes, I think what you mean by "relative probabilities" is that if 
> there were
> several possible versions of "me next moment", then I would be more 
> likely
> to experience the one with higher measure. It is only relative to the 
> other
> possibilities that measure makes a subjective difference.

Ah but you get the point now!



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to