The stability of natural laws is also the simplest situation, I think? (Isn't there something in Russell's TON about this?) Natural laws remain stable due to symmetry principles, which are simpler than anything asymmetric (although physics contains some asymmetries, of course, like matter vs antimatter).
I'm not sure about this "person in an empty room" - surely they experience all sorts of phenomena that can ultimately be traced to the laws of physics? An obvious one is the pull of gravity (or lack thereof). But I have to admit I can't see how one gets from the UDA to physics. The notion that physics "falls out of" all the computations passing through a specific observer moment seems approximately as difficult to explain as how physics operates if one assumes "primary materialism" - but of course physics based on primary materialism comes with the benefit that for 100s of years, people have believed the ontology to be correct, and they have slowly built up a body of knowledge on that basis. Hence comp finds itself doubly disadvantaged in that no one has worked out how it might work in practice, and also in that most people react with an "argument from incredulity" because they've been taught that physics is based on primary materialism. This is a bit like the situation with cars that run on something other than petrol, or subcritical nuclear reactors. No one has put in a century of research to work out how (say) alcohol driven cars might work, or 50 years of research on how thorium reactors might work. Or 300 years of thinking on how reality might be derived from computations. -- 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.
