- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Jacques Mallah <jackmallah.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:02:54 -0700 (PDT)

--- 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

Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:02:54 -0700 (PDT)

--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

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

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.

Surely if it held, one wouldn't need Godel to

declare the plenitude. That part is trivial.

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

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*