Le 06-mars-07, à 07:44, Mohsen Ravanbakhsh a écrit : > > Thank you for welcoming me Mark, > I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but > not all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put > it we might be able to describe the Why question about physical laws, > which is very interesting. > > > 4) There exist a universal dovetailer (consequence of Church thesis, > but we could drop Church thesis and define comp in term of turing > machine instead). > > 5) Never underestimate the dumbness of the universal dovetailer: not > only it generates all computational histories, but it generates them > all infinitely often, + all variations, + all "real" oracles (and those > oracles are uncountable). > > Let me know where's my mistake: > > 1.We are referring to one (actually an infinitely long sub-sequence of > that) history of such universal dovetailer, as some state of our > world.

## Advertising

I don't think so. Worlds or world-views emerge globally from UD* (UD's execution). > > 2.Because that machine is a TM, a history has to be countable, > regardless of compression or expansion of time to allow infinite > power. Not really. An history can be revised infinitely often so that our first person historical point of view could be infinite and even uncountable. > > 3.So we're referring to some state of our universe as a countable one. Like many, especially in the recent posts, forget the points of view distinctions. > > 4.A universal state is not countable. Probably false from a 3 person view. Probably true from 1 person view. > > Every time a bit is sampled, the Multiverse branches > with the observed bit being 0 or 1 depending on your branch. If you > were to continue for an infinite amount of time, each observer will > have observed a real number. However after any finite amount of time, > all the observers have are rational approximations to real numbers. > > But we're talking about uncountability of information necessary to > represent instantaneous state of a universe, not about the > uncountability of possible universes. (Maybe I didn't get your point) > What you are saying just proves that we have uncountable number of > universes. With comp, this arguably follows indeed. 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---