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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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...
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
