Re: decision theory papers

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:03:12 -0700

As a quick contribution to the discussion:

1) What do we mean by the state of a universe?

I mean a fixed configuration.

2) What do we mean by the transition to the next state?

I mean a new fixed configuration is realized.
Successive fixed configurations are not joined by a continuum of
intervening configurations rather the process is "quantified".

Since there is no "motion" Relativity is easy.

3) What do we mean by computational?

I mean that there is no input from an external random oracle.

Pseudo random number generators are not external random oracles but are
computational.

4) In this scheme any "contemplation" is itself a succession of states of a
universe.

5) I do not see universes as "splitting" by going to more than one next
state. This is not necessary to explain anything as far as I can see.

6) Universes that are in receipt of true noise as part of a state to state
transition are in effect destroyed on some scale in the sense the new state
can not fully determine the prior state.

7) annotation of my earlier post:

I see either a global computational arrival at a next state from the
current state [type 1 universe or internal rules that are computational] or
a transition to a next state that is at least partially the result of
information received from an external random oracle [type 2 universe or
internal rules that allow input from the external oracle].

I see both of these types of universes as essential in the ensemble [zero
information requires no selected type - you can not have just type 1 or
just type 2 universes] and also that they both randomly convert into their
opposite type. [type 2 can have a dose of true noise that converts them to
type 1, and the need to avoid selection as an information generator
requires that type 1 universes are also subject to true noise event though
their internal rules are computational. Such a dose of true noise can
change them into type 2.]

Neither type seems to support the idea of decision dependent arrivals at a
next state. Further any illusion of a selection of a next state to be
transitioned to [or any kind of hypothetical grasp of more than one future
*] is already part of the next state or succession of states* which must
have been either computationally or noisily arrived at.

*A given universe is in only one fixed configuration state - which actually
defines that universe - and then it is in the next fixed configuration or
it is partially destroyed by the transition. I currently see no way that a
fixed configuration can incorporate what I see as a a non fixed
configuration - the grasp of two alternate futures.

Hal





   
Received on Thu Apr 18 2002 - 17:04:42 PDT