[I sent this privately by accident]
James Higgo writes:
What that postulates is that everything exists, and that means you exist and
I exist in an infinity of all possible variations. I'm perfectly comfortable
with this, as I am an MWI-er.
In this view, the only reason you ever get a
Why can't the simplest possible program be taken as computing a universe
which includes us? We tend to say it computes all universes as though
it computes more than one. Then it is fair to object that the program
is too simple, because it computes more than one universe.
But this is a semantic
In a message dated 99-10-21 11:53:14 EDT, James Higgo writes:
Yes but the everything universe has the shortest algorithm, containing just
one bit of information. The sub-universes do not need algorithms, just the
WAP.
and Juergen Scmidhuber replies
Ah! The point is: the information
Bruno wrote:
I don't take the notion of observer for granted.
Neither do I, of course. The observer O is something computable that
evolves in some universe U.
The problem is that to be in a universe has no clear meaning
But it does. There is a computable predicate S such that S(U)=TRUE if
5 matches
Mail list logo
