----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:33 PM Subject: Re: Malcom/Standish white rabbit solution . . . >> >> 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 >> >> www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/pa01.htm) - 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 minimal specification including all OMs in a universe could not be > sufficient to specify the OMs completely. There must always be some random > component to the complete specification of an OM.
Bang goes AI! I can't actually see the necessity for unspecifiable or random-content OM's, but here again I should see if I can unearth an explanation for your above assertion in TON (rememember I am talking about OM occurrences when I refer to OM's - part of my probably erroneous assumptions about your approach). I am guessing there will be some premise somewhere I can't agree with. > >> 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'. >> > > This is measure over birth moments (which is handled by section > 4.1). Subsequent moments must also include fairly random additional > data - this is dealt with in section 4.2, which indicates that this > additional random data is extremely unlikely to be interpreted as > miraculous, but rather just interpreted as noise on top of the > regularities contained in the birth moment. I note that you have this > argument now in your pb01.htm paper, not in pa01.html which is where I > remembered it to be. Have you swapped things around? (Pb01 and Pa01 have never changed substantially; you may be thinking of P105/111/112, no longer available; all of the modules have the same fundamental approach in this area.) This is part of the same mutual misunderstanding I suspect. I say nothing about *interpretation* of data, or rejection of noise in Pb01 (or anywhere else). For me, random data is very unlikely to be *encountered*, since I am most likely to be in an ordered universe. If 'invisibles' were to occur (which the program analogy lends itself more towards), they would stay invisible. At least I can understand a *little* better what you are trying to do, which is why I am more satisfied our approaches are fundamentally different. A final brief point in an attempt to help clarify matters. The failure of induction problem is about the next OM's, fine, but the applicability of the minimal specification of a universe (bit string, axiom set, whatever, and akin to a TOE if such exists) *itself* ensures that there is no failure of induction (in general) - there is nothing special about now, or the next few OM's. Alastair > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---