--- Jef Allbright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
There is no way to know if the universe is real or simulated. From our point of view, there is no difference. If the simulation is realistic then there is no experiment we could do to make the distinction. I am just saying that our universe is consistent with a simulation in that it appears to be computable. One disturbing implication is that the simulation might be suddenly turned off or changed in some radical way you can't anticipate. You really don't know anything about the world in which the simulation is being run. (The movie "The Matrix" is based on this idea). Maybe the Singularity has already happened and what you observe as the universe is part of the resulting computation. My argument is that if the universe is simulated then these possibilities are unlikely. My reasoning is that if we know nothing about this computation then we should assume a universal Solomonoff prior, i.e. a universal Turing machine programmed by random coin flips. This is what Hutter did to solve the problem of rational agents. I am applying the idea to understanding a universe about which (if it is not real) we know nothing, except that shorter programs are more likely than longer ones. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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
