On 13 Oct 2011, at 23:50, Russell Standish wrote:

## Advertising

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 05:20:11PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 12 Oct 2011, at 23:48, Russell Standish wrote:I certainly appreciate you don't use Bayes' theorem in your work,butdon't understand why you say you cannot use it.I am not saying that we cannot use it in some context. I am not sure we can use it to explain the physical laws in the comp frame, because, it seems to me that it assume that we belong in a physical universes among other possible one. But when we assume comp, we do not belong to a universe, our bodies (at the subst level) "belong" in infinitely many computations at once, and the appearance of the universe results from the competition among those infinities of computations. It seems to me that in the comp theory Bayes's theorem can be used to justify some geographical aspect, but not laws which have to e independent of any observers.I don't see why Bayes' theorem assumes a physical universe.

`Bayes' theorem does not assume a physical universe. But some use of`

`bayes theorem to justify the laws of physics, presuppose that a`

`physical universe is an object (may be mathematical, like in Tegmark)`

`among other objects.`

All it assumes is a prior probability distribution. Something like the universal prior of Solomonoff-Levin, or the distribution of observer moments within UD*.

`I don't think such a distribution makes sense. What makes sense is a`

`computational state, and a distribution of (competing) universal`

`machines relating that state with other states through the`

`computations that they emulate.`

It is discussed in my book (page 83). The terminology (Occam catastrophe) is mine, but it is certainly possible that other people may have raised the issue by a different name.I will look at this again asap. I thought we discuss all this during the ASSA/RSSA debate.I don't recall this issue being discussed during that debate. There was some discussion on it after my book came out, but more about the conclusion that self-awareness is required for consciousness, which apparently people found counter-intuitive for some reason.

I don't see the relation with this.

Does the OCCAM catastrophe relies on Bayes?It is a consequence of the Occam's razor theorem, which in turnrelieson the Solomonoff-Levin universal prior, and the workingassumption ofliving in an ensemble. It doesn't rely on Bayes' theorem itself, but you can apply Bayes' theorem to the universal prior to get the only effective form of induction known. Li and Vitanyi has a good technical discussion of this, though not of the "catastrophe", as they don't assume an ontology.But this is closer to Hal Finney Universal Distribution theory, based on ASSA.Like in the doomsday argument, the reference base seems to meundefined.I am not oppose to such an approach, I just don't understand how it could work, and I prefer to avoid it.I take observer dependent reference base. The beauty of something like COMP is one can show that all observers must generate equivalent reference bases - agreeing up to some additive constant independent of the complexity of what's being opbserved.What would it be with respect of UD*?.IFAICT, UD* should be equivalent to the all strings ensemble.I don't think so at all. This is missing the highly non trivial structure on the set of all computations coming from the non trivial notion of computations. Allmost all strings are random, but no computations at all is random, except the result of the application of the identity program on the arbitrary inputs when dovetailing on inputs. But that is just a part of UD*. Most of UD* is not random at all, and it has an extreme redundancy. There is the presence of deep computations, self-referential entities, etc.You may be right, but I think that needs to be demonstrated.

?

`The UD generates computations, and only computations, so in all`

`portion of the UD*, there is nothing random at all. randomness crops`

`out in the machine's epistemologies or first person views, because`

`they are intrinsically ignorant to which computations they can belong.`

If true, it should give rise to observable differences between my theory and yours, which would be an interesting and important result.

`Yes. You are still trying a theory which would be comp-independent,`

`apparently. Good luck :)`

BTW - I'm not convinced by Schmidhuber's speed prior work, which prima facie looks like an attempt in this direction. Are you?

`I have a problem with all absolute "prior" to derive physical laws,`

`but I have no problem of the use of some relative prior, to derive`

`many facts in general. They might play a role in the "choice" made on`

`the deep computations (cosmological features).`

`I have also some technical problems with the speed prior based on the`

`version of the speed-up theorem for inductive inference. Universal`

`entities have that crazy property of being infinitely 'self-`

`speedable', both for proving (Blum) and inferring (Royer). Speed`

`priors might lead to persistent creative explosions, for the`

`observer's pov. But perhaps that might make some sense and I am just`

`not looking at this in the right angle.`

It wasn't a critique of your UDA and AUDA reasoning, (which I agree does not use probability, nor anthropic principle) but of your statement that Bayes' and the Anthropic Principle is inapplicable.Not in all context. The anthropic principle might been use for deriving cosmological principles, but not the physical *laws*.Why not?

`Well, because UDA shows that the laws of physics are logico-`

`arithmetical, and that they take the form of internal`

`(epistemological) relative statistics on computation.`

Again if people have alternative, [to Theatetus] and show to me how to translate them in arithmetic, I will interview the LUMs accordingly :)Sorry - I don't really have a good suggestion either. Epistemology is not my field :).

`Is not physics is reduces to the numbers first person plural`

`epistemology, if we are machine?`

`The first person indeterminacy is epistemological. The notion of fist`

`person is a notion of epistemology, in a large sense of a science of`

`beliefs, knowledge, and eventually, with comp, of observation. Except`

`for arithmetical truth itself (where we can debate on the`

`epistemological nature or not), all other hypostases are`

`epistemological. That's why comp leads to a form of neoplantonist`

`monist 'idealism'.`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.