On 8/22/2012 7:43 PM, meekerdb wrote:

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,Nothing "in the theory" suggests that landscapes are a problem!But that is kinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of onesort or another to evaluate theories. Occam's Razor is a niceexample... My point is that explanations should be hard to vary andget the result that one needs to "match the data" or else it is notan explanation at all. One can get anything they want with a theorythat has landscapes. Look!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory_landscape"The string theory landscape or anthropic landscape refers to thelarge number of possible false vacua in string theory. The"landscape" includes so many possible configurations that somephysicists think that the known laws of physics, the standard modeland general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occurin at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to thecollection of those portions of the landscape that are suitable forsupporting human life, an application of the anthropic principlethat selects a subset of the theoretically possible configurations.In string theory the number of false vacua is commonly quoted as10500. The large number of possibilities arises from differentchoices of Calabi-Yau manifolds and different values of generalizedmagnetic fluxes over different homology cycles. If one assumes thatthere is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of findingone with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete,being a version of the subset sum problem."Boom, there it is! The computation problem!NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume alot of computational resources for large problems. But the requiredresources are finite and the problems are solvable. So what's theproblem?Brent --It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whetheror not their demand for resources can be kept up with the load. Itseems to me that Nature would divide up the labor into as many nichesas possible and have a distributed "on demand" system rather than asingle top down computation system.But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming natureas a limited resource in the explanation, thus assuming the thingyou're trying to explain. Bruno at least puts his explanation inPlatonia where the resources are infinite.Brent --

Hi Brent,

`Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a`

`ontological theoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature`

`has infinite resources available then one has to ask why is there a`

`finite world with all the thermodynamic drudgery? Bruno does not seem to`

`ever actually address this directly. It is left as an "open problem".`

`This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem so casually... It is`

`easy to think that way when thinking in top -> down terms. I am assuming`

`the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back`

`down to the ontology. He and I are looking from opposite directions. It`

`does not mean that we fundamentally disagree on the general picture.`

`There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and`

`it is our definitions of Universality. He defines computations and`

`numbers are existing completely seperated from the physical and I insist`

`that there must be at least one physical system that can actually`

`implement a given computation. This puts the material worlds and`

`immaterial realm on equal ontological footings and joined together in a`

`isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction. I care`

`more about the philosophical stuff and he the logical stuff. That a nice`

`division of labor. :-)`

-- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.