Re: Introduction (Digital Physics)

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue Jul 3 10:50:18 2001

Hi Fred,

>I think relying on the sum/integral over all possible programs as the FINAL
>explanation would lead to avoiding the questions about details of the
>criteria. We are safe because we are included in the overall sum. True, for
>the general purpose of explaining our existence, we don't know the details
>of the criteria. But if we are deeply involved in modeling specific
>fundamental phenomena, or are just extremely curious, we are led to pursue
>the details of the criteria, instead of staying satisfied with the top-down
>result.

But then you should say that to James Higgo or to other "antimeasurist",
to coin Jesse Mazer expression.

It seems to me that comp, thanks to computer science eventually, gives
all the constraints needed for making converging the top down approach
toward the specific details.
That is I think the main goal of the UDA.

True, there could be ironical but logical
reasons why the average relative universal machine state remember having
discover some truth "empiricaly", but that would be nice because it
would explain why consciousness evolves among apparently "empirical
world".



>True, we will never succeed in finding out the actual program, ...

If there is one. But with comp any bottoms is a name for deeper
bottoms. The phenomenological laws of physics transcend those bottoms.
I am willing to believe that the quantum is such a very deep invariant
tarnscending bottoms. But then I must extract from the stable predictable
machine belief. This would show that quantum logic would be a
logical necessity from machine's pov. So we can have precise laws
relating experiences, but no bottom.
Also, when you find a bottom you get insecure. On what could that bottom
rely?

I would be astonished if there was an (absolute) nameable bottom.
but I would also be astonished if there was an (absolute) nameable top.



>but
>we can speculate about it, and could try to approach it asymptotically (that
>is what I meant by narrowing down the infinite subset of options) from a
>bottom-up approach. I feel that is what science is all about.

Yes, sure, but with comp, this gives an infinite zoom.
An infinite exploration.
Science do that, but science try to collect the invariants, and sometimes
science discovers deeper explanation of the origine (of the belief) in
those
invariants, etc.


Bruno
Received on Tue Jul 03 2001 - 10:50:18 PDT