On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 09:14:36AM -0000, William wrote:
>
> I think I'm following your reasoning here, this theorem could also be
> used to prove that any probability distribution for universes, which
> gives a lower or equal probability to a system with fewer information;
> must be wrong. Right ?
Essentially that is the Occam razor theorem. Simpler universes have
higher probability.
>
> But in this case, could one not argue that there is only a small number
> (out of the total) of "higher" universes containing an SAS, and then
> rephrase the statement to "we are not being simulated by another SAS" ?
>
By "higher" I gather you mean more complex. But I think you are
implicitly assuming that a more complex universe is needed to simulate
this one, which I think is wrong. All that is needed is Turing
completeness, which even very simple universes have (for instance
Conway's Game of Life).
Cheers
PS - I'm off tomorrow for the annual family pilgrimage, so I'll be
rather quiet on this list for the next month.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
Australia
http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Wed Dec 13 2006 - 06:34:44 PST