On 6/28/2021 8:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 12:10 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: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.Can you name a property of the universe that's more complicated than it needs to be for us to be here? Tegmark said he isn't aware of any such thing in physics.
Now you're moving the goal posts. Tegmark is talking about what's nomologically possible...given physics. You're trying derive physics supposing that everything not contradictory is possible.
Anyway there are three families of elementary particles. Only one is needed.
You say it's too big, but it's large size is related to the amount of time it has taken for life to evolve.
It's too old by at least a factor of two. And there's no reason is could not be small and old. Just adjust the cosmological constant.
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/a53e9854-6c54-8d89-352b-c5cad18ec0ee%40verizon.net.
