On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 05:04:48PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 31 May 2016, at 02:33, Russell Standish wrote: > > > > >Hmm - the "output" of the UD (ie UD*) is a very low complexity > >object. The complexity you refer to is actually UD* seen from the > >inside by a computationlist observer. That complexity has indeed > >arisen through an evolutionary process: mutation via the FPI, > > ? >
FPI is a random process due to only being able to observe a single branch within a branching process. Mutation is exactly the same, particularly as seen from the inside of a multiverse. This argument is made in my paper "Evolution in the Multiverse". > > > >The counting algorithm produces a simple object. Complexity is > >generated by selecting some subset of that simple object, and it is > >the selection which creates the complexity. > > Like in quantum mechanics. But the complexity must be present before > we can observe it, and it is mathematically present, like all > branches of Everett Universal Wave. Why? The opposite clearly appears to be the case. Mathematically, the UD*, or the Multiverse, are simple objects. Hence their appeal under Occam's razor. > > >To restate above, you are confusing the complexity observed by a > >putative internal observer (which by computationalism assumption must > >exist), and the complexity of the UD*. The former is generated by an > >evolutionary process, and high, the latter is low (being equal to the > >KCS complexity of the UD). > > I just use Blum complexity. It exists without the introduction of I had a look at Blum complexity from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blum_axioms ---------------------------------------------- A Blum complexity measure is a tuple ( φ , Φ ) {\displaystyle (\varphi ,\Phi )} with φ {\displaystyle \varphi } a Gödel numbering of the partial computable functions P ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \mathbf {P} ^{(1)}} and a computable function Φ : N → P ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \Phi :\mathbb {N} \to \mathbf {P} ^{(1)}} which satisfies the following Blum axioms. We write φ i {\displaystyle \varphi _{i}} for the i-th partial computable function under the Gödel numbering φ {\displaystyle \varphi } , and Φ i {\displaystyle \Phi _{i}} for the partial computable function Φ ( i ) {\displaystyle \Phi (i)} . the domains of φ i {\displaystyle \varphi _{i}} and Φ i {\displaystyle \Phi _{i}} are identical. the set { ( i , x , t ) ∈ N 3 | Φ i ( x ) = t } {\displaystyle \{(i,x,t)\in \mathbb {N} ^{3}|\Phi _{i}(x)=t\}} is recursive. ---------------------------------------------- Note the key things: Blum complexity is a tuple of functions, one of which maps programs to integers, and the other maps integers to programs. This is a far, far cry from the usual notion of complexity (even structural complexity) which attaches a numerical value to an object. That said, I don't really understand how their examples (time and space complexity, which are very different beasts from structural complexity) fit the definitions given, so maybe there are some problems with the Wikipedia article. > any observer. Also, in the UD, there is no mutation, and no > Darwinian selection. I already addressed this. Once you admit the presence of a computationlist observer (a "view from the inside"), you have both mutation (via FPI) and selection (anthropic selection). The only thing left is heredity to make up the trimuvirate of evolutionary criteria, and that is covered by the "consistent extension" aspect of future observer moments, something you have insisted upon in the past. > Only a measure on the existing computations. > Of course, all this list is based on the idea that the overall > theory should be simple (like RA), but even without notion of > observers, such simple theory admit a rich third person theory of > complexity. I still don't see it. > The point is that such complexity can be derived from the elementary > assumptions, and we don't have to invoke physics or evolutionary > biology to get its existence. We might need to evoke evolutionary > biology to justify *our* (human) apprehension of it. > > Bruno -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
