On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 9:42 PM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can see that you are actually right in asserting that the UDA's
> computations are not random, but I'm not sure that negates the core of
> my objection. Actually what the UDA does is produce a bit field
> containing every possible arrangement of bits. Is this not correct?

I think you are confusing a bit pattern for a computation.  A hard drive can
contain any possible bit pattern that will fit on its platter, but this bit
pattern won't contain consciousness.

Conversely, if the computer is powered up and running the appropriate
program, that program may be conscious.  This is the difference between the
UD, and the series of integers or the digits of Pi.  The UD executes all
possible programs, the set of Integers is equivalent to all possible bit

> I think what you are saying is that somehow this computation produces
> more pattern and order than a program which simply generates all
> possible arrangements of bits. Why? If I were to select at random some
> algorithm from the set of all possible algorithms, it would be pretty
> much noise almost all the time.

I think you could say the program may be uninteresting, or not contain a
mind or minds.

Are you familiar with the Anthropic principle?  The idea that observers will
always find themselves in places where they can exist.  They perform the
selection by virtue of their existence and observation of their environment.

The vast majority of programs may not contain observers, but those few that
do will become environments for the minds they host.

> *Proving* it is noise is of course
> impossible, because meaning is a function of context. You've selected
> out "the program emulating the Heisenberg matrix of the Milky Way",
> but among all the other possible procedures will be a zillion more
> that perform this operation, but also add in various other quantities
> and computations that render the results useless from a physicist's
> point of view. There are certainly all kinds of amazing procedures and
> unfound discoveries lying deep in the UDA's repertoire of algorithms,
> but only when we intelligently derive an equation by some other means
> (measurements, theory, revision, testing etc) can we find out which
> ones are signal and which ones noise.

We can ignore the computations which don't contain observers, and as far as
predicting your own future, we can ignore those that don't contain you.

You also asked about why not execute  them all in parallel.  Every program
does exist in math independetly of the UD.  I think the reason Bruno
described the UD was that it was a simple single program he could show
exists in math.  You also questioned whether the existence of the UD is
something really there or some mental construction of ours.  If you think
"17 is prime" is true independently of your knowledge of it, then the
statement "the UD does not halt" is also true independently of your
knowledge of it.


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