Re: Evidence for the simulation argument

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:54:55 -0800

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:
>
> Thank you for welcoming me Mark,
> I agree with you about the problem with the concept of entropy, but not
> all your points. Actually I like this hypothesis, and as Bruno put it we
> might be able to describe the Why question about physical laws, which is
> very interesting.
>
>
> 4) There exist a universal dovetailer (consequence of Church thesis,
> but we could drop Church thesis and define comp in term of turing
> machine instead).
>
> 5) Never underestimate the dumbness of the universal dovetailer: not
> only it generates all computational histories, but it generates them
> all infinitely often, + all variations, + all "real" oracles (and those
> oracles are uncountable).
>
> Let me know where's my mistake:
>
> 1.We are referring to one (actually an infinitely long sub-sequence of
> that) history of such universal dovetailer, as some state of our world.
>
> 2.Because that machine is a TM, a history has to be countable,
> regardless of compression or expansion of time to allow infinite power.
>
> 3.So we're referring to some state of our universe as a countable one.
>
> 4.A universal state is not countable.
>
> Every time a bit is sampled, the Multiverse branches
> with the observed bit being 0 or 1 depending on your branch. If you
> were to continue for an infinite amount of time, each observer will
> have observed a real number. However after any finite amount of time,
> all the observers have are rational approximations to real numbers.
>
> But we're talking about uncountability of information necessary to
> represent instantaneous state of a universe, not about the
> uncountability of possible universes. (Maybe I didn't get your point)
> What you are saying just proves that we have uncountable number of
> universes.

All actual measurements yield rational values. Using real numbers in the equations of physics is probably merely a convenience (since calculus is easier than finite differences). There is no evidence that defining an instantaneous state requires uncountable information.

Brent Meeker

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Tue Mar 06 2007 - 01:55:33 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:13 PST