On 3/7/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> >Well there is a reason we don't observe them, due to observational
> >selection effects tied to Occam's razor. This is written up in my "Why
> >Occams Razor" paper. Nobody has shot down the argument yet, in spite
> >of it being around on this list since 1999, and in spite of it being
> >published since 2004.
> The basic problem I have with this proposal is the starting assumption,
> where you say that the "natural measure induced on the ensemble of
> bitstring
> is the uniform one." This sort of assumption is made by a number of TOEs
> including Schidhuber's, but it always seemed fairly arbitrary to me, not
> much different in principle from assuming that the measure produced by the
> laws of physics in our universe (which, under the MWI, will probably
> include
> some instances of every possible finite computation in some branch or
> another) should be taken as a starting point. I posted on this issue in
> one
> of my first posts on this list:
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/0d5915764b7f3e08/fc56caf79ce58750?#fc56caf79ce58750

If a uniform measure leads to the world we see, isn't that empirical
evidence that it is the correct one? A uniform measure, or no measure at all
(which seems to me equivalent), isn't really as arbitrary as some specific
measure from physics, which as you imply is what the whole everything idea
is trying to avoid. Could the question in theory be settled by experiment,
running the UD and counting the relative number of structures?

Stathis Papaioannou

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