Let X be some predicate condition on the universes in the multiverse. I
think Hal is assuming that if all the following are true
1. X can be described in a compact form (ie it doesn't fill up a
book with detailed data)
2. X is true for our universe
3. AUH => P(X)=0
then we ded
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 05:32:05PM +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
> Many other way of simulating the universe could be considered like
> for instance a 4D mesh (if we simplify by considering only general
> relativity; there is no reason for the approach not being possible in
> an even more general wa
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 09:57:18AM -0800, Hal Finney wrote:
> [...] That is
> (turning to the Schmidhuber interpretation) it must be much simpler
> to write a program that just barely allows for the possibility of life
> than to write one which makes it easy. This is a prediction of the AUH,
> and
Hal,
thanks for this comprehensive view about universes. This "state of the Art"
essay is worth reading whether one concurs or discords. I concur with some
tiny remarks (could it be otherwise???)
The position that we don't 'see' other universes is correct, missing,
however,
the possibility of OTHE
Bruno,
in the line you touched with 'numbers:
I was arguing on another list 'pro' D.Bohm's "there are no numbers in
nature"
position when a listmember asked: "aren't you part of nature? then why are
you saying that numbers - existing in your mind - are not 'part of nature'?"
Since then I formulate
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:18:56PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Natural numbers are not representation. They are the one represented,
> for exemples by infosystems, or pebbles, animals etc.
"They are the one represented" is a yet another assertion. I would be more
inclined to listen, if you'd sh
At 16:02 12/01/04 +0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:50:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> What I mean is that their arithmetical property are independent
> of us. Do you think those people believe that the proposition
> "17 is prime" is meaningless without a human in the neighbo
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 03:50:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> What I mean is that their arithmetical property are independent
> of us. Do you think those people believe that the proposition
> "17 is prime" is meaningless without a human in the neighborhood?
Of course it is meaningless. Natural
At 13:36 09/01/04 +0100, Georges Quenot wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
> It seems, but it isn't. Well, actually I have known *one* mathematician,
> (a russian logician) who indeed makes a serious try to develop
> some mathematics without that infinite act of faith (I don't recall
> its name for the m
At 15:42 09/01/04 -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think the word "universe" is a basic term. It is a sort
or deity for atheist. All my work can be seen as an attempt to mak
it more palatable in the comp frame.
Tegmark, imo, goes in the right direction, but seems unaware
of t
Thanks Hal (also Norman and others who answered),
I will just comment on one passage you wrote as it may be of general interest.
At 5:12 PM -0800 1/11/04, Hal Finney wrote:
That would require that it is infinitely improbable that you could exist.
But I don't think that is the case, because there
Hal, I follow your line of thought. It makes sense.
Intelligent life is very complex. So making it more prevalent in a universe
would mean adding complexity to that universe, thereby reducing its measure.
Still, one could apply a doomsday-like argument to say that if conditions
for intelligent li
Hal Finney wrote:
>
> Georges Quenot writes:
> > Considering the kind of set of equation we figure up to now,
> > completely specifying our universe from them seems to require
> > two additional things:
> >
> > 1) The specification of boundary conditions (or any other equivalent
> >additional
Doug,
What you say rings true! Thanks for a breath of fresh air.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Porpora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: Strange Anthropic Probabilities
> Hi all,
>
> I have a query about Tegmark's arg
14 matches
Mail list logo
