> Do you mean all mathematical existing objects exist with zero
> probability? It seems to belie the first claim.
It does seem to belie the 1st claim, but I see it as a paradox rather
than a contradiction; the chance of guessing a random natural number is
also 0 and still they do exist.
> I don't think this is at all obvious. In any case, you'd have to
> explain why 2D SASes are impossible when 2D universal machines are
> possible (eg within the Game of Life).
> I suspect 2D SASes are possible, but rather unlikely (it is hard to
> wire up a universal machine in GoL, for instance).
The 1st claim does not necessarily need to be true; if you would need
more initial conditions to create 2D life than to create 3D life; 3D
life is what we should be... And in the 2nd claim, how do you define
unlikely ?
> What makes this a big bang?
Well, if someone ordered you to create a universe inhabiting life; the
easiest would just be to make a sun with a planetary system and laws of
physics it seems to me... So everything starting from "1 point"
(actually, I think you can get 4 points for free because of
normalisation) is what I refer to as a big bang here, versus everything
starting from a multitude of points ...
> Its not such an absolute hard prediction - we can only say that the information
> content of our universe is amongst the lowest - not the absolute minimum.
As long as the difference between the information in our universe and
that of the minimum is a (relatively small) finite number. But we are
talking about infinities (cont. variables) very fast ...
> It takes precisely the same amount of information to simulate
> something as the thing has in the first place. This is the definition
> of information as used in algorithmic information theory. So I don't
> think this latter argument works at all.
I am referring to a perfect simulation by "higher hand". The universe
where this simulation is taking place would both have all the
information of our universe (same amount of information) + the
information to describe the simulators ("higher hand"); which would be
more than the information in our universe (and describing these higher
hands probably isn't going to work without adding an infinite amount of
information).
Also, if there are any other definitions of the likelyhood of a
universe, I would certainly be interested. As I nowhere found a
quantative measure for that ...
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Dec 10 2006 - 04:57:57 PST