Re: Measure, madness, and Max

From: <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 08:54:25 -0800

I, Hal Finney, wrote:
>I see identity in a larger sense. Consider the example proposed
>by Jacques, where the universe is infinitely large, and there are an
>infinite number of exact, perfect, indistinguishable copies of me spread
>throughout the universe. (Each of those copies exists within a region
>of space, billions of light years across, which is observationally
>indistinguishable from our own.)

Gilles HENRI, <Gilles.Henri.domain.name.hidden>, replied:
> I dislike this analogy. If there exist some part of the Universe "perfectly
> indistinguishable" from another one, it means that this part has the same
> surrounding, and by continuity that the Universe is in fact periodic, each
> part having the same copy at the same distance. It is equivalent to say
> that the topology of the Universe is closed (torus-like), and you can
> assimilate it to a finite one.

No, it doesn't mean this. We see only a finite-sized bubble of space.
If the universe is infinite, there are an infinite number of such bubbles,
each spatially separated from the others. Among this infinite number of
bubbles will be all physically possible arrangements of matter, with each
arrangment occuring an infinite number of times. In particular, the
arrangement of matter we see around us will also be repeated an infinite
number of times, as well as all variations on it.

This is not periodicity, it is merely the repetition of a finite sequence
within an infinite sequence, like finding the string "141" an infinite
number of times among the digits of pi.

> For me a deterministic program is NOT intelligent. Intelligence (in the
> human sense, not that of what we call improperly AI) requires a dynamical
> interactivity with the environment.

How about if we have the computers also simulate an environment for the
intelligence to interact with. There can be a whole simulated world,
with other organisms, complex environments, dramatic variations in
conditions, etc. The simulated world can be as complex and intricate
as we desire. Can't intelligence exist in such a world?

If so, please re-address the thought experiment, considering the two
computers to each simulate a world with an intelligence in it, both
running in exact synchronization. Consider what the implications would
be of turning off one of the two computers.

Hal
Received on Fri Jan 22 1999 - 09:03:21 PST