Re: Why our universe is open.

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 12:35:46 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>
> Fred Chen wrote:
> > As Russell has posted, the prisoner's universe is "over-specified" and
> > so is actually more complex than our universe. However, if it is true
> > that a Turing machine such as the Game of Life can realize a
> > self-conscious being, then one wonders whether such a simply constructed
> > universe would have less information and be more probable.
> >
>
> I think this is a very relevant point. If COMP were true, then indeed
> the GoL will contain conscious beings. Since one may suppose an
> ensemble of GoLs with different initial conditions, the only
> infomation needed to specify the universe is the transition table for
> the GoL. Of course, if the tenor of "Why Occam's Razor" is correct,
> then any conscious observer within the GoL would not be aware of the
> the GoL rules, but rather observe a physics remarkably similar to our
> present understanding of Qunatum Mechanics.

It also appears that this can be construed as a reference class
qualification problem. The qualifying degree of self-consciousness
(seemingly requiring some form of empirically based self-sensing, consequent
modelling of self-within-physical-environment, and some minimal intellectual
activity) should turn out to require a 'universe' of non-trivial
minimally-specifiable complexity. Under AUH, the minimally specified one of
these would be our universe.

Alastair
Received on Sat Aug 26 2000 - 04:46:36 PDT