On 26 May 2015 at 04:56, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 May 2015, at 11:12, LizR wrote: > > 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). > > But simplicity is not by itself something which will multiply you enough. > Simplicity is not enough. Then RA can be said to be simple but is of course > quite non symmetrical. (We could take more symmetrical ontology, but again, > I prefer to start from something not related to physics). >
I think the idea in TON is that simple cases are easier to generate computationally, and hence have a higher measure in the space of all computations. Or something like that. Maybe Russell will put me right on this. -- 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.
