Re: Hola!

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 09:33:27 +1000 (EST)

It sounds like I was misunderstanding you again. It appears that you
are identifying our "physical" universe with the "concrete" universe
supporting the UD.

How I interpreted LITTLENESS was that the underlying formal structure
had too few axioms to allow a UD to be implemented. Since Turing
completeness* is sufficient for implementing UD, and since our
"physical" universe is Turing complete, it appeared to me that any
underlying formal system implementing our universe must also be Turing

I didn't think resource issues came into it.


*I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct term for a formal system
to be able to implement a universal Turing machine.

> Russell Standish wrote :
> >However, surely LITTLENESS is contradicted by observation. We live in
> >a universe big enough to run the UD. Or have I missed something here?
> We live in a universe big enough to run a piece of the UD*, sure. To run
> the whole (infinite) UD*, though, the universe should expand infinitely
> with infinite creation of space/time, probably energy and all this in a
> very robust way to keep track of the computations.
> Not only that is not obvious to infer from observations, but if comp is
> correct that is absolutely undecidable.
> Of course LITTLENESS is the opposite of the everything or the plenitude
> hypothesis.
> I'm going to Dubrovnik now, so I'm not here for the next two weeks,
> Bye, Bruno

Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
Room 2075, Red Centre
Received on Thu Apr 06 2000 - 16:31:01 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST