RE: Turing vs math

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 16:06:08 +0100

Yes but the everything universe has the shortest algorithm, containing just
one bit of information. The sub-universes do not need algorithms, just the
WAP.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: juergen.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:juergen.domain.name.hidden.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 3:56 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden; james.higgo.domain.name.hidden.co.uk
> Subject: RE: Turing vs math
>
> > It seems we're losing track of the original objection, which is to say
> that:
> > 1. everything exists (all relationships are equally valid, all worlds
> > exists, you can string 'snapshots in time' together any way you wish -
> with
> > a glass unsmashing or whatever - and all are equally likeley, as all
> exist
> > with a probability off one.)
>
> But of course they are NOT equally likely (a major point of the 1997
> paper).
>
> > and 2. WAP (we see a stable environment suited to us because we
> otherwise
> > wouldn't be here to see it).
> > ...seem to explain the entire universe, except in that there's nothing
> > stopping temporary minor abberations such as a flying rabbit.
>
> To repeat, given the universal Solomonoff-Levin distribution U, the simple
> universes (those with short algorithms) are much more likely. That's
> why flying rabbits are so improbable.
>
> Juergen
Received on Thu Oct 21 1999 - 08:20:07 PDT