RE: Turing vs math

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:03:13 +0100

Where we differ is in terminology. If there is an everything universe, there
is not 'all other universes' - there is 'all worlds'. There is only one
universe, and that is the everything-universe (pleenitude, whatever).


What defines our wold as the subset of the everything universe that we see
is simply the weak anthropic principle. That dictates which tiny fissures,
with their laws, and inhabitants with a false idea of 'time', are habitable.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: juergen.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:juergen.domain.name.hidden.ch]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 4:49 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden; james.higgo.domain.name.hidden.co.uk
> Subject: RE: Turing vs math
>
> > 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.
>
> Ah! The point is: the information content of a particular universe U is
> the length of the shortest algorithm that computes U AND NOTHING ELSE.
> But the shortest algorithm for everything computes all the other universes
> too. Hence it does not convey the information about U by itself!
>
> Everything conveys much less info than most particular computable
> objects. More is less. But to calculate the probability of a particular
> universe you need to look at its particular algorithms, of course, not
> at the collective probability of all universes.
>
> Juergen
Received on Thu Oct 21 1999 - 09:07:48 PDT