--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > This is related to the wabbit question.
> > Given the above, is it possible to deduce whether
> > the world is rational based on observation?
>
> Very interesting. You want the converse. The
> original statement effectively states:
>
> "if the world is rational, then whenever an arbitray
> state is discovered, all other possible alternative
> states must also exist." Hence the Plenitude.
>
> The converse could be stated as follows:
>
> "If all possible states are also found to exist
> whenever an arbitrary state is discovered (i.e.,
> there are no unexplained phenomena, no wabbits) then
> the world is rational."
>
> Experiments in Quantum Theory seem to indicate, in
> the small scale, that this is the case.
OK. The question is what do you mean by "seem to
indicate". I would like a precise mathematical
criterion for this. The problem, as I pointed out in
the thread about the AUH not being falsifiable, is
that using the minimum-complexity criterion for
Occam's razor, *ANY POSSIBLE* experimental facts will
still not lead one to say that the AUH had been
falsified. Hence I say
> > Perhaps the best thing to do is just to compare
> > the complexity of an observation with that of an
> > equal size, anthropically filtered but otherwise
> > random possible observation. The latter case
> > would have higher complexity.
>
> I don't understand your statement about complexity.
Why not? Complexity = Kolmogorov complexity. I
am comparing two cases:
1) A typical observation (modelled as a bitstring)
drawn from, e.g., a UD with computationalism. Simple
"apparent laws of physics" are said to be favored by
this.
2) A typical observation, as above, but drawn
instead from a set with equal weight for all
anthropically valid possible observations, of the same
size (same bitstring length) as above. This should be
more "wabbitty"; the question is how to define that.
> > > Yet another way of proving the Plenitude is to
> > > rely on Goedel consistency/completeness theorem.
> > That doesn't prove the plenitude.
>
> True. I stand corrected. It does not prove the
> physical Plenitude. However,it certainly expands the
> mathematical universe to infinity. Now if the
> correspondance between the physical Plenitude and
> the Mathematical Universe holds then my statement is
> still right.
Surely if it held, one wouldn't need Godel to
declare the plenitude. That part is trivial.
> > > How do you draw the line around the set of
> > > creatures with the quality of observer? The
> > > simplest way is to draw it around yourself, and
> > > to adopt a relativistic philosophy, which I did.
> >
> > No, it's not simplest, and you still haven't
> > defined it or "yourself".
> >
> We went through that many times. I draw the line as
> tightly around myself.. my mind as I can. "I
> think,"this is my starting point. You don't have
any.
You still haven't defined "I", and the fact that
we've discussed it many times without me getting a
straight answer from you is not an excuse for you.
As for my starting point, as I've said repeatedly,
it's my observer-moment.
=====
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL:
http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
Received on Fri May 26 2000 - 12:14:24 PDT