If I understand the Measure Problem correctly, we wonder why we find
ourselves in a Goldilocks Universe of stars and galaxies rather than
a simpler universe consisting solely of blackbody radiation, or a more
complex, unpredictable Harry Potter universe.
1. An attempt at the solution was that
Steven Smithee is not just a Black Belt Bayesian, but a Black Belt at
Keeping Track of Who Has Said What About Cool Topics in Web Pages that
are Linked To from Nowhere Else on the Internet. He pointed out
http://udassa.com/summary1.html, where someone (Hal Finney, if we go
by 'whois') said:
A
World-Index-Compression Postulate: The most probable way for the
output of a random UTM program to be a single qualia, is through
having a part of the program calculate a Universe, U, that is similar
to the universe we currently are observing; and then having another
part of the program
and would get angry if I punched it
I meant to say, would punch me back if I punched it. It's begging
the question for the search algorithm to know whether the internal
mental state is angry.
-Rolf
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
The considerations trying to solve the measure problem have not been
that primitive, but much better. The concept of a cubic meter won't
make sense in most of the universes, and to compare infinities in a
rigorous manner is nothing new to mathematicians. Both, Standish and
Schmidhuber (and
(Warning: This post assumes an familiarity with UD+ASSA and with the
cosmological Measure Problem.)
Observational Consequences:
1. Provides a possible explanation for the Measure Problem of why we
shouldn't be extremely surprised to find we live in a lawful
universe, rather than an extremely
On Oct 24, 9:25 pm, Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rolf Nelson wrote:
1. Provides a possible explanation for the Measure Problem of why we
shouldn't be extremely surprised to find we live in a lawful
universe, rather than an extremely chaotic universe, or a homogeneous
cloud of gas
Wei, your examples are convincing, although other decision models have
similar problems. If your two examples were the only problems that
UDASSA had, I would have few qualms about adopting it over the other
decision models I've seen. Note that even if you adopt a decision
model, you still in
To put it more generally, thinking in terms of how much you care about the
consequences of your actions *allows* you to have an overall preference
about A and B that can be expressed as an expected utility:
P(A) * U(A) + P(B) * U(B)
since P(A) and P(B) can denote how much you care about
On Oct 25, 7:59 am, Wei Dai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't care
about (1) and (3) because those universes are too arbitrary or random, and I
can defend that by pointing to their high algorithmic complexities.
In (3) the universe doesn't have a high aIgorithmic complexity.
Any theory that
However, to demonstrate would probably
be difficult, and if we had something powerful enough to do this, we
might have a theory that allows UDASSA to make novel predictions about
the observed Universe.
To give examples of how hard this is:
1. What is the probability that our Universe has
In (3) the universe doesn't have a high aIgorithmic complexity.
I should have said that in (3) our decisions don't have any consequences, so
we disregard them even if we do care what happens in them. The end result is
the same: I'll act as if I only live in (2).
In the (3) I gave, you're
12 matches
Mail list logo
