On 3/1/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 3/1/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > What I argue is this: the fact that Occam's Razor holds suggests that the > > universe is a computation. > > Matt - > > Would you please clarify how/why you think B follows from A in your > preceding statement? Hutter's proof requires that the environment have a computable distribution. http://www.hutter1.net/ai/aixigentle.htm So in any universe of this type, Occam's Razor should hold. If Occam's Razor did not hold, then we could conclude that the universe is not computable. The fact that Occam's Razor does hold means we cannot rule out the possibility that the universe is simulated.
Matt - I think this answers my question to you, at least I think I see where you're coming from. I would say that you have justification for saying that interaction with the universe demonstrates mathematically modelable regularities (in keeping with the principle of parsimony), rather than saying that it's a simulation (which involves additional assumptions.) Do you think you have information to warrant taking it further? - Jef ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=11983
