RE: Flying rabbits and dragons

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue Oct 26 03:24:52 1999

James Higgo wrote:

>It seems I'm now the only one who thinks WAP is the only viable basis for
>defining 'laws'. There is no 'nonsense' or 'sense' except subjectively.
>Anyone care to put forward an objection to this parsimonious view, before
>going on about mathematics?

Why do yoy say that? It seems to me that most of us thinks that WAP is the
correct approach for defining 'laws'.

The differences appears in the important nuance.

For exemple I extend WAP to "WTP" = Weak Turing-tropic Principle.

Second my arguments shows that if WTP is correct we have to isolate the
'laws'
from it.

Sense is indeed subjective. The problem is that "flying rabbit" make
sense.
So WTP implies the laws of physics have to be deduced from computer
science,
and this is the only way to make the flying rabbit sufficiently rare.
Mathematicaly we must find a unique measure (with well defined
conditionals)
on the set of infinite computational histories. The finite histories
count for nothing.

Bruno
Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 03:24:52 PDT