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/[email protected]/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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
