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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to