Re: NYT (Op-Ed) on Multiverse Theory

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 10:53:48 +1000 (EST)

Howard Marks wrote:
> There are others that have other ideas, such as Russell's Essay on Occam,
> but, the essence of Occam's Razor is that the simplest physical explanation
> is usually best, not mathematically. Mathematics, after all, is but a

I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're getting
at. Simplicity/Complexity is a property of descriptions (I guess an
"explanation" is a description) - so what does a physical but not
mathematical explanation mean?

Mathematical descriptions have the property of being simpler than that
which they describe. Another word for this is
"compressibility". Indeed, I would take compressibility as being an
operational definition of what it means to be mathematical. (Obviously
in contrast to Wolfram who sees his CAs as not being "mathematical")


> representation of physical reality, and should not be confused with "taking
> the place of physical reality." Which is where I differ in the Copenhagen
> interpretation of QM.
> Cheers
> Howard

A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Room 2075, Red Centre
            International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Received on Sun Apr 13 2003 - 20:57:35 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:08 PST