Russell
Good points and much appreciated. Another idea is that everythingers
do also believe in reincarnation: It's not impossible, so it occurs. It is
also true that not all buddhists believe in reincarnation, just as not all
christians believe in hell.
Would you care to submit a 1-para summary, for the complete layman,
of the recent discussion on Wei Dai's universal measure, and your argument
for why the exponential measure should be taken?
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 12:57 AM
> To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: FW: reality
>
> I do believe for completeness, you should add a summary of the recent
> discussion on Wei Dai's universal measure, and my argument for why the
> exponential measure should be taken. This then explains neatly the
> existence of physical laws in terms of a "minimum information
> principle".
>
> I think there are some analogies here with Bhuddist thinking, but
> there are also some substantial differences (the biggest (I think) being
> that
> Bhuddists believe in reincarnation, whereas most everythingers (for
> want of a better name) believe in quantum immortality.) I think it is
> important to _compare_ and _contrast_, otherwise you'll end up with
> another dreadful treatise like Fritjof Capra's "Tao of Physics".
>
> Cheers
>
> >
> > Treatment for article submitted to _The Middle Way_ - comments welcome.
> > James
> >
> > > For the best part of a century, physicists have yearned for an
> ontology,
> > > a meaning behind quantum physics. Each different interpretation has
> its
> > > own proposed ontology, and most of these have been compared with
> eastern
> > > religions.
> > >
> > > A new set of ideas is being developed which combines quantum mechanics
> > > with computer science to develop a view of reality which, once again,
> > > has strong parallels with an eastern religion, particularly Buddhism.
> > >
> > > The two key ideas are the 1957 Everett 'many worlds' interpretation of
> > > quantum physics (MWI) and the concept, attributed to Tegmark and
> > > Schmidhuber, that the universe contains almost no information when
> seen
> > > as a whole.
> > >
> > > The MWI implies that everything possible actually occurs. Every 10E-43
> > > seconds, 'our universe' branches off into googols of other universes,
> > > some very similar and others very different. The Weak Anthropic
> > > Principle (you only exist in universes hospitable to life, so only see
> > > those outcomes) accounts for the fact that we see constants and laws
> > > around us.
> > >
> > > The Tegmark/Schmidhuber idea is as follows. The information content of
> a
> > > system (its Kolmogorov complexity) is defined by the length of the
> > > computer program required to generate it. In an infinite universe,
> which
> > > contains everything possible, the program can be very short. Wei Dai
> has
> > > suggested a counting algorithm. For example, the BASIC program LET
> > > A=A+1; GOTO START will generate an infinite set of natural numbers.
> > > These can be mapped onto a physical (infinite) universe, or what
> Deutsch
> > > calls the 'multiverse'. On the other hand, the program required to
> > > generate a single classical universe would be about as large as the
> > > universe itself.
> > >
> > > We see ourselves as a subject undergoing successive experiences in
> time
> > > in a classical universe simply because our view is so restricted. If
> we
> > > could see the whole multiverse, we would not really be able to see
> > > anything: it is all noise unless you 'squint' and look down a certain
> > > fissure in the multiverse, choosing a time line and spatial
> > > co-ordinates. But, like a creature which inhabits the Mandelbrot set,
> we
> > > see amazingly rich complexity around us. We, outside that set, can
> > > understand that the Kolmogorov complexity of that world is very small
> -
> > > a short equation.
> > >
> > > What would someone who fully understood and believed this feel? They
> > > would see that their universe is purely subjective. Nothing is
> > > objective. Everything is relative to the observer: space, time, truth.
> > > From an Archimedian perspective, you can see what you like in the
> > > universe - it makes no sense to single out one person, one universe,
> one
> > > set of physical laws or constants.
> > >
> > > Understanding that you are not an objective feature of reality, that
> > > your self does not really exist as an independent entity, is a major
> > > tenet of Buddhism (anatta). This is shown in the parable of the ocean
> > > wave: on seeing the looming shore, the wave screams in horror at the
> > > thought that it will soon be obliterated. Like us, the wave cannot see
> > > that it is simply part of a much bigger, and more wonderful, reality.
> > >
> > > A full, deep understanding of physics is equivalent in some ways to
> the
> > > Buddhist concept of enlightenment. The idea of self is relinquished.
> The
> > > very fabric of reality is seen to be subjective. The absurdity of
> > > attachments becomes clear.
> > >
> > > References
> > > Tegmark, Max, 1995, Does the universe in fact contain almost no
> > > information? , Foundations of Physics Letters, Vol 9, No. 1, 1996,
> pages
> > > 25-42
> > > Schmidhuber, Jürgen, 1998, A Compurt Scientist's View of Life, the
> > > Universe and Everything, available at http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen
> > > Everett III, Hugh, 1957, "Relative State" Formulation of Quantum
> > > Mechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics, Vol 29, No. 3, pages 454-462
> > > Kolmogorov, A. N, 1965, Inf. Transmission Vol. 1, No. 3
> > > Dai, Wei, comments from the 'everything-list' at escribe.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit,
> University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
> Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Fri Jul 23 1999 - 01:25:23 PDT