On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
> On 1/27/2013 6:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Stephen P. King > <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > >> 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>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. >> > > It's uniquely in the past for all complex observers > > Hi Telmo, > > I would partition up "all possible observers" into mutually > communicating sets. Not all observers can communicate with each other and > it is mutual communication that, I believe, contains the complexity of > one's universe. > That makes sense to me. > Basically my reasoning forllows Wheeler's *It from Bit* idea. > > > because: > > - It cannot contain a complex observer > > > How do we know this? We are, after all, speculating about what we can > only infer about given what we observe now. > Isn't it just a tautology? I don't know how to justify it any further. It's like saying that an empty glass does not contain water. > > > - It is so simple that it is coherent with any history > > > Simplicity alone does not induce consistency, AFAIK... > I'm thinking in the following terms: imagine a CA which has an initial state where a single cell is on. For any super-complex state that you find down the line, the initial simple step is always a consistent predecessor. > > > > > 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? > > I mean predecessor in the sense that there are plausible sequences of > transformations that it's at the root of. These transformations include > world branching, of course. > > > I am playing around with the possibility that monotonicity should not > be assumed. After all, observables in QM are complex valued and the real > numbers that QM predicts (as probabilities of outcomes) only obtain when a > basis is chosen and a squaring operation is performed. Basically, that *is* > is not something that has any particular ordering to it. Here I am going > against the arguments of many people, including Julian Barbour. > Ok, this also makes sense to me. But can you accept that there is quantifiable similarity between states? In this case we can still build a state graph from which we can extract timelines without requiring ordering. > > > > >> >> 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... >> > > I had Kolmogorv in mind and it's the best I can offer. I agree, it's > still week and that's a bummer. > > > Maybe we should drop the desiderata of a measure and focus on the > locality of observers and its requirements. > I don't think I understand what you mean here. > > > > -- > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
