Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor
Marchal wrote: Russell Standish wrote: I raised this very issue in Why Occams Razor, and came to the conclusion that the only satisfactory interpreter is the observer itself. And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'. I propose the answer 'the self-referentially sound Lobian machine' (LM). At this stage, I believe this is but one answer as to what an observer is. Noone has proved that Bruno's Loebian machine satisfies my postulates of consciousness (CLASSIFICATION, TIME and PROJECTION), however it seems likely (the first two look like fairly trivial properties of a Turing automata, and maybe one gets PROJECTION from the UDA). I suspect many models of the observer are possible, including non-deterministic ones. Cheers Dr. Russell Standish Director High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile) UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 () Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED] Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor
Russell Standish wrote: I raised this very issue in Why Occams Razor, and came to the conclusion that the only satisfactory interpreter is the observer itself. And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'. I propose the answer 'the self-referentially sound Lobian machine' (LM). (exemple: PEANO ARITHMETIC, ZF, VNBG, first-order extension of programming language, Second order Arithmetic, etc.) The Universal Dovetailer argument (UDA) shows that observation is selection (by LM) on near possibilities. Modelising near possibilities by consistent extensions (UD accessible) in the language of the Lobian machine, makes it possible to asks the Lobian machine what it can observe. The nuances, introduced by the incompleteness phenomenon, between p provable(p) provable(p) and p provable (p) and consistent(p) provable (p) and consistent(p) and p can then help to extract the fungibility equivalence structure (Deutsch sense ?, Fredkin or Toffoli?) of the possible sheaf of computational histories. The structure I got from that looks like a quantum logic. (to be short) It is at least enough rich for translating little quantum gates in arithmetic (where the LM can observe). Coincidence? If I get enough gates the schroedinger equation will be shown necessary for all consistent machine looking near enough. Bruno PS Sorry for this merging of the two mailing list. But if universe can differentiate and merge, how could many worlder comp mailing lists not interfere too. O gosh that was a metacomment, and that too, and ..., I will be moderated out! (from the for-list) nh!!! Here I am using Gordon famous cry when dreaming meeting Bill Gates, iirc, hoping that works :o
Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor
Bruno, before we get phased out: you quoted Russell: I raised this very issue in Why Occams Razor, and came to the conclusion that the only satisfactory interpreter is the observer itself then you write very smart thoughts (like: Modelising near possibilities by consistent extensions (UD accessible) etc. all, including Occam, reducing the concept of 'all' into the segment we can stuff into our mind. Our limited capabilities are not limiting nature (or call it whatever), we just don't comprehend/observe the rest of it. Not even the 'logically possible' part of it. Our way of talking is not too humble, I can say modestly. John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes; - Original Message - From: Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:02 PM Subject: Re: Logically possible universes and Occam's razor S N I P
