On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 07:54:03PM +0100, Patrick Leahy wrote:
>
> * Since the White Rabbit^** argument implicitly assumes a measure, as it
> stands it can't be definitive.
>
> * But the arbitrariness of the measure itself becomes the main argument
> against the everything thesis, since the main claimed benefit of the
> thesis is that it removes arbitrary choices in defining reality.
>
> Paddy Leahy
>
>
> ^** "This is a song about Alice, remember?" --- Arlo Guthrie
>
This measure is not arbitrary, but defined by the observer
itself. Every such observer based measure satisfies an Occam's razor
theorem {\em in the framework of the observer}.
I discuss why the arbitrariness of the choice of UTM does not matter
in my "Why Occam's Razor" paper. What I didn't show in that paper (I
wrote it nearly 5 years ago!) was that any mapping of descriptions to
meaning suffices (ie any observer, computational or not) - Turing
completeness is not needed. Turing completeness only gives a guarantee
that the complexities seen by different observers differ by at most a
constant independent of the description.
Cheers
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Thu May 26 2005 - 18:37:38 PDT