>
>
> ----- 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.
I'm not quite sure where you are leading with this. Can you elaborate?
>
> > > 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.
The all-possible TM scenario does indeed contradict absolute
measure. That is its problem. However, the task in my paper is to
solve why a SAS perceives itself to be in one of the simplest
universes, and why the WR problem does not occur for it. For that,
using the SAS itself as the interpreting engine (TM perhaps) suffices.
Now maybe there is an absolute measure on the plenitude, or maybe
there isn't. In the latter case, we are simply one example of a SAS,
sitting inside a simple appearing universe (to itself) picked at
complete random from all the possibilities in the plenitude.
>
> Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit,
University of NSW Phone 9385 6967
Sydney 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Room 2075, Red Centre
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Sun Nov 21 1999 - 17:22:14 PST