On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 06:03:12PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> On 16 Mar 2011, at 09:53, Digital Physics wrote:
> 
> >You are right, the "theory of nothing" is an old hat, published in
> >the 1990s. Hutter's new contribution is the observer localization:
> >how many bits are necessary to identify the observer's location in
> >the multiverse? Random locations cost many bits. Non-random ones
> >are much more likely and therefore more predictive in the Bayesian
> >framework. This "allows to distinguish meaningful from
> >predictively meaningless theories".
> 
> Marcus Hutter, like Schmidhuber, seems to be not aware of the mind
> body problem, notably as formulated in the computationalist theory
> of mind. His self-localization used implicitly the mind-brain
> identity thesis, which cannot be sustained in any computationalist
> framework. I already give you the references on sane04.
> Please don't hesitate to ask questions if you find something unclear
> in it.
> You will understand that the notion of self-localization of "myself"
> in a universe or a multiverse does not make sense, except in a
> precise *relative* way which needs the use of the classical theory
> of knowledge of Plato (Theaetetus), and its translation into
> arithmetic (something which can be done by using a technic due to
> Gödel) to be defined precisely. This makes computationalism
> predictive and falsifiable. The key idea consists in distinguishing
> the logics of the first person views (and the first person plural
> views) from the third person views.
> 
> Bruno
> 

Yes, he is a little biased by the Kolmogorov complexity result that
random strings are the most complex. The problem is in treating all
random bits as significant, when usually they aren't. I argue (On
complexity & emergence, 2001) that the relevant complexity measure
takes into account the significance of the information to the
observer, which really means that random strings are amongst the
simplest.

Of course this touches on your point that one cannot localise an
observer to a particular bitstring, but rather to all consistent
strings (that have the same meaning to the observer).

I would say this is my main significant departure with Schmidhuber and Hutter.

-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                              
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to