On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 08:25:40PM -0800, nichomachus wrote:
> I would like to see that the relationship of the computable universe
> hypothesis to the MUH be clarified. Is our universe's physics
> classically computable at the quantum scale? If not, how does it
> follow that the macroscopic universe, or the universe as a whole is
> classically computable if its operation at the quantum level is not? I
> apologize if this question displays my naivete on the subject, but it
> is something I am currently endeavoring to more clearly understand.
>

##
Advertising

One can solve the Schroedinger equation using a classical algorithm.
> preferred? If we defined the complexity to be the length of the
> shortest possible computer program that could generate the results,
> doesn't this definition imply a particular computational architecture
> that would itself be necessary to account for in measuring algorithmic
> complexity? Also, does having the property of universality imply a
> definite lower-bound to the complexity of a hypothetical physics? once
> again, probably very naive questions on my part, but I would like to
> better understand these matters.
>
This is resolved by using the observer as the reference to measure
complexity. See my paper Why Occams Razor for a discussion.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---