On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi, > > Bruno wrote previously "...the physical reality has to be given by the > measure on all computations." Would this not imply that physical reality > has a zero measure? > > My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical > universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD > is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical > universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me? > > If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics > completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why > bother measuring what doesn't exist?! > >
I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations - that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will always be finite. It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
