Yeah, okay, you're right. I re-read your previous post, and I hadn't
fully understood it when I wrote what I did below.
In your post, you wrote "Either one must axiomatise away all semantic
meaning for the theory, or end up with one based on circular definitions
of terms." That sounds like another way of saying that all roads lead
to zero information. I agree that the AUH is probably not falsifiable.
But as you said, there are other compelling criteria for some of the
deepest explanations. The AUH may not be very scientific, for that
reason - but I'd say that it definitely has a strong philosophical
basis.
BTW, I've been calling it the AUH recently. I've heard of, and tried
other names, such as "principle of plenitude", or "principle of
fecundity" (the latter comes from Robert Nozick). The AUH seems the
least cumbersome and the most straightforward to me.
Russell Standish wrote:
>
> 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
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Chris Maloney
http://www.chrismaloney.com
"Donuts are so sweet and tasty."
-- Homer Simpson
Received on Fri Oct 08 1999 - 20:40:26 PDT