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:
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@eskimo.com/msg05272.html

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





>
>>> 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!

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to