An interesting idea.
Where can I read a more comprehensive justification of this
distribution?
If a number of programs are isomorphic the inhabitants naturally won't
know the difference. As to whether we call this one program or lots of
programs seems to be a question of taste and IMO shows
Russell,
My personally preferred solution to this problem is described in my
paper Why Occam's Razor.
I agree that extra bits in the program would tend to appear as noise
rather than some miracle like a fire breathing dragon. Is it then
assumed that the magnitude of this noise is unlikely to be
I have a feeling some of these points of view are not falsifiable (and
therefore somewhat meaningless). An individual that is about to
experience a QM immortality episode can't perform additional experiments
to answer (philosophical) questions about his identity. The only
observable is the
-Original Message-
From: Matt King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 8 November 2003 3:37 AM
To: David Barrett-Lennard
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Quantum accident survivor
Hello David,
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
Please note that my understanding of QM is rather lame
I'm trying to define identity...
Let's write x~y if SAS's x and y (possibly in different universes) have
the same identity. I propose that this relation must be reflexive,
symmetric and transitive. This neatly partitions all SAS's into
equivalence classes, and we have no ambiguity working out
I might still occasionally face accidents where I had
to be very lucky to survive, but the lower the probability there is of
surviving a particular type of accident, the less likely I am to
experience events leading up to such an accident.
So if someone is on a cliff about to commit
I have been wondering whether there is something significant
in the fact that our laws of physics are mostly time symmetric, and we have a
law of conservation of mass/energy.
Does this suggest that our universe is associated with a reversible (and
information preserving) computation?
-
: Thursday, 13 November 2003 9:59 AM
To: David Barrett-Lennard
Subject: Re: Reversible computing
I think the answer to your question is yes (assuming I understand you
correctly). Information and probability are closely linked (through
algorithmic information theory - AIT for those acronym
lists
to my study of Hitoshi Kitada's theory of Time, and would
like to learn about what you have found about them.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: David Barrett-Lennard
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:36 PM
Subject: Reversible computing
I have
I'm sure we all agree that QM on its own is not the full story. Ditto
with GR. Has anyone claimed to come up with a self consistent, complete
description of our universe? Saying that all universes exist which
follow the MWI is putting too much faith in a partial (and perhaps
merely
By small I meant small number of particles.
- David
-Original Message-
From: scerir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 November 2003 6:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: spooky action at a distance
David Barrett-Lennard
According to QM, in small systems evolving
The set of everything U is ill defined.
Given set A, we expect to be able to define the subset { x is element of
A | p(x) } where p(x) is some predicate on x.
Therefore given U, we expect to be able to write S = { x an element of U
| x is not an element of x }
Now ask whether S is an element of
Therefore the reals would have to include all kinds of numbers that
have
no
finite description at all. I am not sure I believe such things exist,
and
for a similar reason I am not sure I believe that every member of the
hypothetical power set of the integers exists either.
Hi Jesse,
I think
We observe that our universe uses a reversible
computation, yet our brains only
appear to use irreversible computation.
It seems important to ask why. Is it possible for SASs to live in a universe that is directly associated
with an irreversible computation? If
so then why are we special?
Russell said...
In answer to the original question, I would conjecture that an
evolutionary process is the only process capable of generating
complexity. Since we need a certain amount of complexity to be
conscious, it follows that the simplest universes are ensembles of
possibilities, on
flat.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: David Barrett-Lennard
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 9:14 PM
Subject: Move versus assign
We observe that our universe uses a reversible computation, yet our
brains only appear to use irreversible
Jesse said
So, although the set of all well-defined finite descriptions must
clearly
be
countable in the traditional sense where arbitrary mappings are
allowed,
it is not countable if only finite-describable mappings are allowed,
although it can easily be shown to be smaller than another
Hi Bruno,
How successful would you say has been the idea to derive QM from number
theory?
What proportion of physicists are aware of this idea?
How does it relate to the Russell Standish derivation of QM?
David
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Georges Quenot wrote:
Also I feel some confusion between the questions Is the universe
computable ? and Is the universe actually 'being' computed ?.
What links do the participants see between them ?
An important tool in mathematics is the idea of an isomorphism between
two sets, which allows
Jesse Mazer wrote,
Isn't there a fundamental problem deciding what it means for a given
simulated object to implement some other computation?
Yes, but does this problem need to be solved? I have no problem with
the idea that some physical object (in one computation) can be
interpreted in
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
Hi Eugin,
I see, we're at the prove that the Moon is not made from green cheese
when
nobody is looking stage.
I thought this list wasn't about ghosties'n'goblins.
Allright, I seem to have been mistaken about that.
You seem to be getting a little hot under the collar!
Here is a
Hi Eugen,
Yeah. I'm saying that, say,
0xf2f75022aa10b5ef6c69f2f59f34b03e26cb5bdb467eec82780c2ccdf0c8e100d38f20
d9
f3064aea3fba00e723a5c7392fba0ac0c538a2c43706fdb7f7e58259
didn't exist in this universe (with a very high probability, it being
a
512
bit number, generated from physical system
Hi Eric,
0xf2f75022aa10b5ef6c69f2f59f34b03e26cb5bdb467eec82780
didn't exist in this universe (with a very high probability, it
being a
512 bit number, generated from physical system noise) before I've
generated it. Now it exists (currently, as a hex string (not
necessarily
ASCII) on
Eugen said...
I was using a specific natural number (a 512 bit integer) as an
example for
creation and destruction of a specific integer (an instance of a class of
integers). No more, no less.
That's plenty to bring out our difference of opinion. cf creation and
destruction of a specific
and I'm not fallible. Therefore
;-)
David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
I'm wondering whether the following demonstrates that a computer
that
can
only generate thoughts which are sentences derivable from some
underlying
axioms (and therefore can only generate true thoughts) is unable
to
think
Kory said...
At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
This allows us to say the probability that an integer is even is 0.5,
or
the probability that an integer is a perfect square is 0.
But can't you use this same logic to show that the cardinality of the
even
integers is half
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Is the universe computable
At 1/21/04, David Barrett-Lennard wrote:
Saying that the probability that a given integer is even is 0.5 seems
intuitively to me and can be made precise (see my last post).
We can say with precision that a certain sequence
It seems that it is meaningless to talk about an absolute measure on the
ensembles for the multiverse.
However, we can make real progress by simply appealing to principles of
symmetry. For example, when an atom emits a photon it seems reasonable to
assume there is 50/50 chance of measuring up
This group tends to relate concepts back to MWI. Perhaps CI is a useful way
to think as well...
At a given point in time, a thinking entity is only aware of a small subset
of its surroundings. This suggests an ensemble of all mathematical
possibilities that are consistent with that mind in
30 matches
Mail list logo
