Re: Turing vs math

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 1999 17:00:23 EDT

In a message dated 99-10-21 11:53:14 EDT, James Higgo writes:

> 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.
 
and Juergen Scmidhuber replies

> 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!

Juergens seems to be talking as if the measure of information is absolute. It
is not. Information is always conditional information (Shannon), where the
condition is the observer's a-priori database of information. Thus a one bit
universe could mean different things for different observers. As James
inferred, the WAP is essential: the world we observe is conditionned by our
own mental frame of reference.

As it happens, because of the need for justifying our existence using an
evolutionary history embedded in a physical world, and because of the need to
share a common language and a common logic, the (physical and logical) frames
that each different human observer occupies are very close to each other.
Hence the illusion of objectivity - that is the illusion that the world is
the same no matter who the observer is. To remove oneself from this illusion,
we must distance ourselves far away from our physical, and logical frames.
Einstein did it, for a short while, until he explained what he did to
everybody (physicists). Then, everybody jumped in Einstein's frame, that is
they accepted RT in their own a-priori database and the world regained its
semblance of objectivity.

George
Received on Thu Oct 21 1999 - 14:03:38 PDT