On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>  On 7/2/2013 8:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> If we compare the percentage of  possible programs that are supportive of
> conscious observers in relation to all programs of the same length, we can
> derive something like chaitin's constant.
> You've jumped to measures on programs.

I was making the point that we may be able to prove that in the
distribution of possible structures, ones that lead to self organized
information patterns with intelligence are likely a small minority, not
that it will give us the value of alpha, although this is what Bruno hopes
will one day be possible with sufficient computational power and thought.

> In such a program there are presumably parameters that fix the value of
> the physical constants.  Now are you proposing that a program that sets
> alpha=1/137 is "more probable" than one that sets the value to 1/136.5.  Is
> it less probably than one that sets alpha=1/130?  Is the measure to be on
> alpha or 1/alpha?

I would say the probability should be weighted based on the minimum
description necessary to describe all the constants and physical laws.
E.g., you might decide to weight them by how frequently it (re)appears in
the UD.


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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to