On 1/27/2013 6:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Dear Bruno and Stephen,

On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:

    On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

        The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It suggest
        a long and deep computations is going through our state, but
        comp suggest that the big bang is not the beginning.

    Dear Bruno,

        I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources = Big
    Bang per observer.

Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state?

Hi Telmo,

Yes, if I can add "...that a collection of observers can agree upon" but that this simplest possible state is uniquely in the past for all observers (that can communicate with each other) should not be just postulated to be the case. It demands an explanation.

That doesn't mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely predecessor to any other state.

The word "predecessor' worries me, it assumes some way to determine causality even when measurements are impossible. Sure, we can just stipulate monotonicity of states, but what would be the gain?

The more complex a state is, the smaller the number of states that it is likely to be a predecessor of.

Sure, what measure of complexity do you like? There are many and if we allow physical laws to vary, infinitely so... I like the Blum and Kolmogorov measures, but they are still weak...



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 
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to