On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 04:56:00AM -0800, ronaldheld wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1101/1101.2198v1.pdf
>    Any comments?
>                                  Ronald

I finally got around to reading. I am completely unimpressed. Two

1) His use of Physical Church-Turing Thesis is rather
unconventional. Normally, this means that the physical universe is
Turing simulable, but he uses it to mean something like COMP or
Tegmarks MUH. Note that by Bruno's UDA, the physical universe is no
longer simulable if COMP is true!

2) More seriously, I don't buy his Observer Class Hypothesis
(OCH). Observers do not just "absorb" information, they model
it. In one way, they could be said to search for short algorithms that
predict/reproduce the information at hand. So there will only ever be
a countable number of observers. They cannot be power sets of the set
of information strings. This becomes most absurd when talking about
observers observing themselves. Yet the number of information strings
in the plenitude will be uncountable (2^\aleph_0). There is an analogous
relationship with the concept of computable numbers versus all real



Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to