In Alistair's post (I believe) Russell is quoted as:

>...The SSA refers to birth moments. The "universe" is sort of code for
> the history up to that point in time. The White Rabbit problem
> concerns what happens after that point in time....

which reminds me of the astrology I used in my 20s as a young aspiring
natural sciences student. As I rationalized astrology to fit this old-time
wisdom into my 'modern' sci. vues.
The horoscope is a composition of ASPECTS in a metaphoric representation of
the known - knowable status of the ambient part of the universe (Solar
system) at BIRTH MOMENT, with differences of as little as 2-3 minutes
(angle-changes). It was a HINT for the understanding mind and included the
rudimentary knowledge of close sequencing movements of the points included.
All that (white rabbit problem?) is expressable in a metaphric simulative
translation (which may be wrong). This was in the 1st half of the 40s.
I did not use astrology ever since, but then it was interesting.
No conclusions for the ongoing topics.

John M

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:40 AM, Alastair Malcolm <

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 1:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution
> >>
> >> Comparing identical OM's/OM sequences, it seems to me that I am most
> >> likely
> >> to be ['in'] that sequence of OM occurrences that is in one of the
> >> simplest universes that can produce them (cet. par.). (Reason given
> >> below.)
> >
> > You are assuming a measure over all histories, rather than birth
> > moments or observer moments.
> No. Please see below.
> >This is a rather different SSA than has
> > been usually proposed (ASSA or RSSA). I can see a possible connection
> here
> > to
> > the Schmidhuber II approach (measure over programs), but it is
> > contradictory to either the Marchal dovetailer (subjective
> > indeterminism) or my all strings approach (which I consider to be
> > essentially just starting from the dovetailer trace UD* and assuming a
> > uniform prior on the strings).
> >
> >> In your 'Why Occam's Razor' paper, sect 2, following a discussion of
> the
> >> Schmidhuber ensemble and the Universal Prior, it is stated "If we
> assume
> >> the
> >> self-sampling asssumption [...t]his implies we should find ourselves in
> >> one
> >> of the simplest (in terms of C-0[Complexity of description x]) possible
> >> universes capable of supporting self-aware substructures (SASes). This
> is
> >> the origin of physical law...".
> >
> > The SSA refers to birth moments. The "universe" is sort of code for
> > the history up to that point in time. The White Rabbit problem
> > concerns what happens after that point in time.
> >
> > An assumption of a noumenal reality is enough, of course, to eliminate
> > white rabbits in conjunction with the arguments in section 2 of Why
> > Occams Razor. But noumenal reality has its own set of problems,
> > including being incompatible with quantum facts, something that Bruno
> > has been at pains to point out.
> If your 'noumenal reality' is the same as the 'compressed ('u')reality' I
> use in my paper, I can't see where it has any more of a problematical
> relationship with (say) mwi qm than the basic physicalist approach does.
> (Neither can I find any references to noumen* and qm/quantum together in
> the
> everything archives by Bruno. If by 'noumenal reality', you just mean
> materialism, that's a different kettle of fish.)
> >
> > What I find is that most explanations requiring noumenal reality can
> > also be explained by simply assuming the anthropic principle. It is
> > possible that the AP suffices to banish white rabbits also. However,
> > the AP becomes a little mysterious without noumenal reality, which I
> > do discuss at several points in my book. It remains, IMHO, an unsolved
> > problem.
> >
> >> If one takes the description string x (up to
> >> some finite limit) as (minimally) representing a universe (and from
> which
> >> OM's are derived), then application of your equivalence class method
> >> should
> >> solve the WR problem directly (check out my roughly equivalent method
> at
> >> - this hopefully answers your
> point
> >> above about the origin of our being almost certainly in one of the
> >> simplest
> >> SAS-supporting universes: the premise can be all logically possible
> >> universes (or just 'entities'), some or all of which are representable
> by
> >> description strings (say).
> >
> > Its been a while since I read your paper, but IIRC it was largely a
> > paraphrase of the same argument I put in section 3 of Why Occams Razor.
> Re-reading this section under the interpretation provided in your recent
> email (where you talk about phenomenally cohering OM's) convinces me that
> you are saying something fundamentally different. Your section 2 is
> certainly closer - I previously assumed from other comments that you were
> taking it as read that any minimal specification of an OM (eg via a
> program,
> description string etc) would have to implicitly include all the OM's in
> that universe - that is the simplicity that a TOE is aiming for. The
> 'cohering OM's' are then automatically catered for - they are part of the
> same representing description string (or whatever represents them). This
> would then coincide with my own approach: the measure is taken over (say)
> bit strings minimally representing all possible relevant universes (or
> just
> 'entities', since minimal universe representations are assumed to provide
> the simplest representations of normal OM's), and not over 'histories'.
> >
> >> (From other comments I earlier assumed this is
> >> what you were actually doing - it seems our ideas in this area are
> >> significantly different after all.)
> >>
> >
> > It seems to me that you have changed your interpretation of the SSA
> > (there's nothing wrong with changing your mind, but its always worth
> > trying to dig into the foundations) as mentioned above.
> I don't think I have, but it does seem that misinterpretations like the
> one
> above have led to misunderstandings of our respective views. I would just
> like to reiterate that what is in my paper does not correspond to the
> ideas
> expressed in section 4.2 of 'Theory of Nothing'.
> Alastair
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> > Mathematics
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052                  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Australia                      
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > >
> >

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