This is a curious response to my previous post. I'm not sure I see the
relevance. I'm not sure that "the only possible "foundation" is
"zero-information"", however it has great aesthetic value, and IMHO
the best explanation we have yet. However, it probably is not a good
theory from a Popper perspective. Incidently, it appears that it is
possible to derive Occam's Razor, or something like it from the AUH
(as you call it - others call it the principle of plenitude). I am
currently writing this up as a paper, and will post this to LANL
eprints when ready, but it largely draws upon arguments discussed in
this email list.
Cheers
>
> It's my conviction that the only possible "foundation" is "zero-information",
> as Tegmark describes in his paper. Unless you're willing to admit a God who
> can pick and choose what is real according to her whim, there is no other
> possibility. Any foundation you pick begs the question, "Why
> that foundation and not some other?"
>
> The whole beauty of the AUH (All Universes Hypothesis) is that it truly
> contains no information. No possible universe is to be prefered over any
> other. I thought we were all on the same page about this, but after reading
> a few of the recent posts, I'm not sure you all agree.
>
>
> Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > Forgive my scepticism, but it would seem that there is no "foundation
> > theory". Either one must axiomatise away all semantic meaning for the
> > theory, or end up with one based on circular definitions of
> > terms. Popperian falsification is a good way of explaining why certain
> > scientific explanations are preferred over others, however it is not
> > the only one. Others would include Occam's razor, and aesthetics
> > (Einstein's sense of beauty). These three principle do not necessarily
> > point in the same direction. For example, empirical evidence
> > contradicting general relativity tends to be either ignored, or
> > analysed to an inch of its life to explain away the discrepancy in
> > terms of systematic or experiemntal error. The reason is because
> > physicists have faith that GR must be correct because of its inherent
> > beauty (of course if experimental evidence mounted up against GR to a
> > great level, then GR would either have to be abandoned or modified
> > (Popper's procedure) so by no means does beauty supervene on popperian
> > falsification, but nor is it the other way around. Similar with
> > Occam's razor)
> >
> > I just don't see how this can be a building block of the TOE. It may
> > be a meta theory decsribing the theory, just as it discusses other
> > theories, but it is not a component.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > >
> > > Theory of knowledge has to be foundation of any other theories.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 6:36 AM
> > > > To: dude.domain.name.hidden
> > > > Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > > Subject: Re: Fabric of Reality
> > > >
> > > > Sorry - I was sitting at a different computer terminal than the one
> > > > next to my bookshelf.
> > > >
> > > > I was recommending the book for several reasons: arguments against
> > > > solipsism, physical evidence argument for the multiverse, the bit on
> > > > time travel, and the free will issue, and the first quantum concept
> > > > (now that I've looked at the book again to refresh my memory of what
> > > > this is. I agree that the book discusses
> > > > Tipler's crackpot Omega point theory, but I didn't get the impression
> > > > that Deutsch took it seriously.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, the most important message is that to construct a TOE, we
> > > > need to jump out of the physics perspective. However, I don't believe
> > > > that the four strands he picks (QM, Church's thesis, Evolution and
> > > > Popperian falsification) are the correct components. I suspect we have
> > > > a better integration in this mailing list. Definitely QM is in,
> > > > likewise information and computation theory (not just the
> > > > Church-Turing thesis), I suspect that evolution is a second order
> > > > phenomena (in the sense that hydrodynamics is a second order theory of
> > > > molecular dynamics). I don't really see where Popperian epistemology
> > > > fits in, except as a theory of evolution about knowledge - almost a
> > > > third order theory??.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I also had mixed feelings about this book. Read my review at
> > > > > http://www.chrismaloney.com/hobbies/books/for.html if you're
> > > > > interested.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Higgo James wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, and Deutsch also talks baloney about omega point, but his
> > > > explanation
> > > > > > of 'time, the first quantum concept' is crystal. I've ordered modal
> > > > logic,
> > > > > > but I'm not looking forward to receiving it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Marchal [SMTP:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 1999 1:41 PM
> > > > > > > To: Russell Standish
> > > > > > > Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Summary
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Fair enough. Modal logic is where I lost you in your thesis -
> > > > > > > >hopefully I will time to read your suggested introductory book on
> > > > it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I would add Deutsch's Foundations of Reality. It has some
> > > > particularly
> > > > > > > >pertinent comments on Solipsism and on the Free Will vs Determinism
> > > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean his "Fabric of Reality". I like it very much. I agree
> > > > > > > with him when he explains that the two slit experiment with
> > > > > > > individual photon is an almost direct evidence for multiple worlds.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I appreciate also the interpretation of Popper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, I deeply disagree with what he says about Church's thesis.
> > > > > > > More on this later, without doubt.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bruno.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Chris Maloney
> > > > > http://www.chrismaloney.com
> > > > >
> > > > > "Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
> > > > > -- Homer Simpson
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > --
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Chris Maloney
> http://www.chrismaloney.com
>
> "Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
> -- Homer Simpson
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Thu Oct 07 1999 - 20:00:50 PDT