> About your comment "We don't see a total ordering of points in spacetime, so
> UDASSA probably doesn't run on a typical Turing Machine". I don't follow
> your reasoning here as to why UD+ASSA+typical TM implies that we should see
> a total ordering of points in spacetime. Isn't it possible that such an
> ordering exists internal to the TM's program, but it's not visible to the
> people inside the universe that the TM simulates?

It definitely is possible, my only point is that the fact that most
UTM program outputs don't have an easily-observed homogeneous and
isotropic n-dimensional space in their output, *may* be Bayesian
evidence against the plain UDASSA. So if we consider 3 hypotheses:

1. plain UDASSA

2. UDASSA variants, such as the set-theory UDASSA you mentioned, or a
UDASSA on a UTM that can atomically implement higher-level operations
like "multiply two complex numbers to infinite precision" and "apply
an operation uniformly to an infinite manifold".

3. something else

Then the lack of ordering that we see probably gives me a "Bayesian
Shift" from (1) to (2) or (3). However, to demonstrate would probably
be difficult, and if we had something powerful enough to do this, we
might have a theory that allows UDASSA to make novel predictions about
the observed Universe.


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to