> 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
