[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 phy
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 semanti
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
> It seems we're losing track of the original objection, which is to say that:
> 1. everything exists (all relationships are equally valid, all worlds
> exists, you can string 'snapshots in time' together any way you wish - with
> a glass unsmashing or whatever - and all are equally likeley, as al
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
