At 23:02 06/05/04 -0700, George Levy wrote:
>Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>I agree with George, but note that I arrive at an equivalent
>>assertion without using that "lower levels have lower complexity
>>and therefore higher measure". That is possible, but
>>the problem is that it is a priori hard to estimate the "dumbness"
>>of the universal dovetailer which is quite capable to entangle high
>>complexity programs with low complexity programs, so that
>>the "multiplication" related to low-complexity can be inherited to
>>high-complexity (due to dovetailing). But you may be right, I have not
>>proved that "a" UD could be that dumb!
>
>Gosh, Bruno, I don't understand what you are saying. Maybe I am too naive!
>Or maybe our background conceptions are too different so even if the
>language is the same it does not make sense. For one I don't see how a
>first person experience needs to depend on a UD. My view is that the
>"observer-experience" simply consists in the (virtual) transitions from
>one "observer-moment" to another where the transition is filtered by
>having to be consistent with the "observer-state." Note how the observer
>bootstraps himself into consciousness out of the plenitude. So maybe my UD
>is the "nul UD" : it is the maximally dumb UD.
But then why are you sure that lower complexity have higher measure?
I understand intuitively but how would you prove that without introducing a
special UD?
A "maximally dumb" UD? I am not sure I understand.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Fri May 07 2004 - 04:53:39 PDT