- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

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

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:54:55 -0800

Mohsen Ravanbakhsh wrote:

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
*