On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:14:36AM -0000, William wrote: > > I think I'm following your reasoning here, this theorem could also be > used to prove that any probability distribution for universes, which > gives a lower or equal probability to a system with fewer information; > must be wrong. Right ?

Essentially that is the Occam razor theorem. Simpler universes have higher probability. > > But in this case, could one not argue that there is only a small number > (out of the total) of "higher" universes containing an SAS, and then > rephrase the statement to "we are not being simulated by another SAS" ? > By "higher" I gather you mean more complex. But I think you are implicitly assuming that a more complex universe is needed to simulate this one, which I think is wrong. All that is needed is Turing completeness, which even very simple universes have (for instance Conway's Game of Life). Cheers PS - I'm off tomorrow for the annual family pilgrimage, so I'll be rather quiet on this list for the next month. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---