Re: White Rabbits and QM/Flying rabbits and dragons

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 19:57:19 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> > [AM:]This only goes some way to clarify matters for me - can the same
output
> > bitstrings have different interpretations? (eg could the very same bits
> > specify two different sets of SAS's, each in their own physical
universes?)
> > If so, it could at the least complicate the measure (equivalence class)
> > calculation, since then nonsense bitstrings (failed outputs of the
inference
> > engine) could in principle be interpreted as SAS-universes. If on the
other
> > hand there are no multiple interpretations for the same bits, then there
is
> > no such problem.
>
> I would wager (if I was a betting man) that any SAS within a bitstring
> was unique (within an isomorphic equivalence class). However, at this
> stage I have no proof of this assertion - it would an interesting
> proof to try to find.

This implies a partial restriction on the possible (objective)
interpretations of output bit strings - just saying *any* interpretation
that generates a SAS is no good, because it makes the TM redundant except as
an artifact to solve the WR problem. I prefer a single possible
interpretation which is defined by the theorems generated by the inference
engine. The only other possibility is that the structure of the output
string admits certain possible different interpretations - rather messy, and
bringing in a new (and unnecessary) ontology.

> > The underlying problem here (as I see it) is that if one admits into
> > existence other SAS's in (say) more complex universes according to *our*
> > criteria, but which nevertheless correctly assess themselves as in the
> > simplest SAS-compatible universes according to *their* criteria (and all
> > because their TM/inference-engines are different - not the same
situation as
> > my first comment above), it seems we are back with an all-possible-TM's
> > situation, which you have rejected. If these other SAS's *aren't*
admitted
> > into existence, we are back with the question I asked earlier (and you
> > answered by indicating this part of your paper): why *this* particular
TM
> > (the inference engine), and no other?
>
> Why do you think we're back to the all-possible-TM situation?

I am saying we *would* be if the circumstances I mentioned above pertained
(where fundamentally different SAS's each correctly assess themselves as
being in the simplest possible SAS-compatible universe, according to their
own TM criteria; and presumably if 2 different TM universe generators are
allowed one must allow them all). Otherwise (if we are the only SAS-set (or
strictly:that with the highest measure)) - why *this* particular (inference
engine) TM?

 And even
> if we were, all we need to explain is why the universe we exist in
> appears simple to us. Surely, that is what I've explained.

You have previously rejected the all-possible-TM scenario as disallowing
measure assessments.

Alastair
Received on Sun Nov 21 1999 - 12:08:10 PST