On 18 Jan 2013, at 05:34, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:25:20PM -0500, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 1/17/2013 4:21 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
From just the abstract alone, I can't see how this differs from the
Solomonff universal prior?
OK, is that a good thing? It seems to me that it is. Are you
saying that the content of the paper is trivial?
No - because the paper seems to be saying a whole bunch of other
things, which may or may not be interesting. I have downloaded a copy
to peruse later when I have time.
My comment was more in response to yours - if the measure you get is
Solomonoff's, then it is not going to shed light on the measure issue
of the UD. (Except, perhaps, to get Bruno to take Solomonoff's measure
I take it very seriously, and I think it can play a role in explaining
the thermodynamical feature of physics, and thus energy, and now
(here) even pressure. But this is still "physics" in disguise. To get
both quanta and qualia, unless I am dead wrong, we have to keep the
redundancy of the computation. But algorithmic information
unfortunately does eliminate that redundancy (by information
compression, Chaitin's Omega is shallow, Posts number is deep, in
Bennett sense), and so is of no use in the "direct" (self-referential)
derivation of physics: meaning that its use must be justified too from
the "material hypostases".
Baez paper seems quite interesting though. But the methodology use a
form of Occam which makes it still a form of treachery, to derive
physics from comp, and this can eventually result in putting
consciousness still under the rug, despite the partial use of comp.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at