> 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.

To give examples of how hard this is:

1. What is the probability that our Universe has existed since the Big
Bang, but will abruptly end tomorrow? There have been about 2^16 days
since the Big Bang, so we can get a lower bound of probability in
UDASSA with 1 / 2^((length of a binary program that runs a Universe
for x subjective time, then halts) + (about 16 bits)). I don't know
how to program any of the basic TM's, and can't personally estimate of
the complexity of the first term. And this is just to get an lower
bound, the actual probability is probably much higher.

2. Take a real-world example, like the Pioneer Anomaly; does "new laws
of physics caused the Pioneer Anomaly" have a higher or lower
complexity than "there is a mundane explanation for the Pioneer
Anomaly"? Good luck!

On the plus side, one wouldn't have to solve every problem to make
UDASSA into a science; one would just have to solve (successfully
predict) a handful of novel problems (that aren't solvable by other
methods) to demonstrate that is true and useful.

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 

Reply via email to