On 6/27/2021 6:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 6/27/2021 4:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2
Bruce wrote:
The problem with that is that it is dependent
on the language in which you express things.
The string 'amcjdhapihrib;f' is quite
comples. But I can define Z =
amcjdhapihrib;f', and Z is algorithmically
much simpler. Kolmogorov complexity is a
useful concept only if you compare things in
the same language. And there is no unique
language in which to describe nature.
Complexity is a property of structure, so if we
want to explore complexity of real-world objects
indirectly, that is, in representations of the
real-world objects rather than in the real-world
objects themselves, we must make sure that the
representations preserve the structure and thus
the complexity of the real-world objects.
That's known as begging the question.
So there must be some systematic, isomorphic
mapping between the real-world objects and their
representations - a common language for
describing (representing) the real world objects.
It seems that one such language could be binary
strings of 0s and 1s, at least this approach has
been very successful in digital technology.
Digital technology is not fundamental physics.
Another way of isomorphic representation of the
structure of real-world objects that is even more
similar to the structure of real-world objects is
set theory since real-world objects are
collections of collections of collections etc.
Is there a set that contains all sets?
There's is a short computer program that executes all
other computer programs:
https://youtu.be/T1Ogwa76yQo <https://youtu.be/T1Ogwa76yQo>
It's distribution will be of a type where shorter
programs are exponentially more frequent the shorter the
description is. This accounts for the law of parsimony
(assuming we belong to such an ensemble).
As I said, that is known as begging the question.
Bruce
To offer a theory that gives an explanation/answer to some
question is how science progresses. The theory may be right or wrong.
It only becomes a logical fallacy when one says the predictions
are necessary true because the theory is necessarily true.
Otherwise Newton was begging the question when he offered a
theory of universal gravitation.
The proof is in the pudding though. Bruno's proposed the same
theory, but he's not been able to make any predictions...only
retrodictions in which he fits the interpretation of number
theoretic theorems to "observations" about consciousness.
Newton calculated the measured orbits of planets.
Many theories succeeded by explaining a previously unexplained
phenomena, rather than predicting new, previously unknown phenomena.
Bruno's theory answers Feynman's question about why it should take
infinite logical operations to figure out what's going on in no matter
how tiny a bit of time or space.
What do you think about Standish's derivation of quantum postulates
from an ensemble theory?
It seems to me there's an immediate failure of prediction. You write:
/In this paper I show why, in an ensemble theory of the universe, we
should be inhabiting one of the elements of that ensemble with least
information content that satisfies the anthropic principle. This
explains the effectiveness of aesthetic principles such as Occam’s razor
in predicting usefulness of scientific theories.//
//
//Russell Standish in “Why Occam’s Razor” (2004)//
//And indeed, this is what we find when we examine our physics:/
But it's not what we observe. We observe an enormous, possibly infinite
universe that is many orders of magnitude more complicated than
necessary for us to exist in it.
Brent
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/de87a78c-f12a-8f62-b19f-cdf39912a81a%40verizon.net.
