On 8/22/2012 6:21 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

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,## Advertising

Nothing "in the theory" suggests that landscapes are a problem! But that iskinda my point, we have to use meta-theories of one sort or another to evaluatetheories. Occam's Razor is a nice example... My point is that explanations should behard to vary and get 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 theory that haslandscapes. 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, thestandard model and general relativity with a positive cosmological constant, occurin at least one of them. The anthropic landscape refers to the collection of thoseportions of the landscape that are suitable for supporting human life, anapplication of the anthropic principle that selects a subset of the theoreticallypossible 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. Ifone assumes that there is no structure in the space of vacua, the problem of findingone with a sufficiently small cosmological constant is NP complete, being a versionof the subset sum problem."Boom, there it is! The computation problem!NP-complete problems, or just N-problems, are ones that consume a lot ofcomputational resources for large problems. But the required resources are finiteand the problems are solvable. So what's the problem?Brent --It is all about how big the finite problems grow to and whether or not theirdemand for resources can be kept up with the load. It seems to me that Nature woulddivide up the labor into as many niches as possible and have a distributed "on demand"system rather than a single top down computation system.But you're trying to explain nature. You seem to be assuming nature as a limitedresource in the explanation, thus assuming the thing you're trying to explain. Brunoat least puts his explanation in Platonia where the resources are infinite.Brent --Hi Brent,Of course I am trying to explain Nature, in the sense of building a ontologicaltheoretical framework. If one starts assuming that Nature has infinite resourcesavailable then one has to ask why is there a finite world with all the thermodynamicdrudgery?

`How do you know the world is finite? Most cosmologies allow that the multiverse is`

`infinite in extent.`

Bruno does not seem to ever actually address this directly.

`Sure he does. The UD only uses finite resources at any give step - the states are`

`countable and are only executed finitely.`

It is left as an "open problem". This is why he dismisses the NP-Complete problem socasually... It is easy to think that way when thinking in top -> down terms. I amassuming the known physical laws, particularly thermodynamics and working back down tothe ontology.

`Physical laws are never 'known'. They are models to explain our observations. If you`

`assume them, then you've assume the model is correct and the ontology is whatever exists`

`in the model. Why would you do that??`

He and I are looking from opposite directions. It does not mean that we fundamentallydisagree on the general picture.There is really only one major disagreement between Bruno and I and it is ourdefinitions of Universality. He defines computations and numbers are existing completelyseperated from the physical and I insist that there must be at least one physical systemthat can actually implement a given computation.

`I think it is probably a consequence of his theory that persons can only exist when`

`physics exists and vice versa; but it is difficult to work out the implications`

`(especially for me, maybe not for Bruno).`

This puts the material worlds and immaterial realm on equal ontological footings andjoined together in a isomorphism type duality relation because of this restriction.

That means you need a material primitive AND an immaterial primitive.

I care more about the philosophical stuff and he the logical stuff. That a nice divisionof labor. :-)

Logic is just some rules to keep us from talking self-contradictory nonsense. 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.