On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:13:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> here you are summing up well my critics of Schmidhuber and Tegmark
> which I have done when entering in this list discussion.
> This has given the big debate between ASSA and RSSA (the absolute
> and the relative Self-Sampling-Assumption).
> DM, or comp, does not work with the ASSA, which indeed would make
> the physical as a sort of geographical. In a sense, comp rescues
> physics from such approaches, and it introduces a new invariant (the
> change of the phi_i, or the change for the initial ontic theory).
> But comp also  rescues consciousness and persons from the
> materialist tendency to eliminate them.
> Anthropic principles are not completely evacuated, some defense of
> them and variants are still possible, especially for the
> cosmological history and for some explanation of geography. But the
> laws of physics are not anthropic. They might be said in a loose
> sense to be universal machine-thropic, or Löbian-Thropic, but not in
> the Bayesian sense. The probabilities and their rôle are derived
> from the first person indeterminacy.

With COMP, I don't see any difference between Anthropic and

With COMP, and via your UDA, our observed universe is selected from
the set of all infinite strings (which I call descriptions in my

Without the anthropic principle, ISTM that your theory would suffer
the Occam catastrophe fate. How do you avoid that?



Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics      hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales          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