On 8/22/2012 1:09 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 8/22/2012 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:On 8/22/2012 4:36 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:Hi Jason,## Advertising

Nothing "in the theory" suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that is kindamy point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluate theories.Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should be hard tovary and get the result that one needs to "match the data" or else it is not anexplanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theory that has landscapes.Look!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape"The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to the large number ofpossible false vacua in string theory. The "landscape" includes so many possibleconfigurations that some physicists think that the known laws of physics, the standardmodel and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occur in at leastone of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of those portions of thelandscape that are suitable for supporting human life, an application of the anthropicprinciple that selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations.In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as 10500. The largenumber of possibilities arises from different choices of Calabi-Yau manifolds anddifferent values of generalized magnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If oneassumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of finding onewith a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a version of thesubset sum problem."Boom, there it is! The computation problem!NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot of computationalresources for large problems. But the required resources are finite and the problemsare solvable. So what's the problem?Brent --It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not their demandfor resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature would divide upthe labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed "on demand" systemrather than a single top down computation system.

`But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limited resource`

`in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts`

`his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite.`

Brent -- 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.