Re: Move versus assign

2003-11-23 Thread Stephen Paul King
Dear David, Please explain the claim : "We observe that our universe uses a reversible computation". I do not see how this follows from the observation that, on every observable scale, there is a non-invertible (thermodynamic) arrow of time. I do not see how this is possible if your

Re: Move versus assign

2003-11-23 Thread Russell Standish
On the quantum scale, the dynamics are reversible, to a very high level of accuracy. Irreversibility appears at macroscopic scales. 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

RE: Move versus assign

2003-11-23 Thread David Barrett-Lennard
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

RE: Move versus assign

2003-11-23 Thread David Barrett-Lennard
is interesting and remarkable. - David -Original Message- From: Stephen Paul King [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 24 November 2003 11:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Move versus assign Dear David,       Please explain the claim : We observe that our universe uses

Re: Move versus assign

2003-11-23 Thread Russell Standish
No - I think in terms of ensembles of descriptions. Some of those descriptions describe observers observing the descriptions. It then becomes natural to ask what sort of description an observer might see, given the description must describe the observer. Turing machines don't have much to do with