Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:37:10 +0200
Le 07-juin-05, à 09:20, Russell Standish a écrit :
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 08:29:57AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> Le 06-juin-05, ? 22:51, Hal Finney a ?crit :
>>
>>> I share most of Paddy Leahy's concerns and areas of confusion with
>>> regard to the "Why Occam" discussion so far. I really don't
>>> understand
>>> what it means to explain appearances rather than reality.
>>
>>
>> Well this I understand. I would even argue that Everett gives an
>> example by providing an explanation of the appearance of a wave
>> collapse from the SWE (Schroedinger Wave equation) and this without
>> any
>> *real*collapse.
>> And I pretend at least that if comp is correct, then the SWE as an
>> *appearance* emerges statistically from the "interference" of all
>> computations as seen from some inner point of view of the mean
>> universal machine.
>> But, as I pointed a long time ago Russell is hiding (de facto, not
>> intentionally I guess :) many assumptions.
>
> It would be nice to expose these "hidden" assumptions. As far as I'm
> aware, all my assumptions are exposed and upfront, where at least you
> as a reader can decide if you agree, but there is always the
> possibility of some that I've missed.
OK. it seems to me that (equation 14 at
http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html )
is really presupposing a lot. Where does that come from? It presupposes
a space/time geometry, continuity, derivability notion for H,
topological notion, etc.
To begin with.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
(image/gif attachment: img75.gif)