Re: Measure, Doomsday argument

From: Quentin Anciaux <quentin.anciaux.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 22:56:48 +0200

Le Lundi 20 Juin 2005 23:12, "Hal Finney" a écrit :

>
> The empirical question presents itself like this. Very simple universes
> (such as empty universes, or ones made up of simple repeating patterns)
> would have no life at all. Perhaps sufficiently complex ones would be
> full of life. So as we move up the scale from simple to complex, at
> some point we reach universes that just barely allow for advanced life
> to evolve, and even then it doesn't last very long. The question is,
> as we move through this transition region from nonliving universes,
> to just-barely-living ones, to highly-living ones, how long is the
> transition region?
>
> That is, how much more complex is a universe that will be full of life,
> compared to one which just barely allows for life? We don't know the
> answer to that, but in principle it can be learned, through study and
> perhaps experimental simulations. If it takes only a bit more complexity
> to go from a just-barely-living universe to a highly-living one, then
> we have a puzzle. Why aren't we in one of the super-living universes,
> when their complexity penalty is so low?

Beside this. I just think about this :

Why aren't we blind ? :-)

If the "measure" of an OM come from the information complexity of it, it seems
that an OM of a blind person need less information content because there is
no complex description of the outside world available to the blind observer.
So as they are less complex, they must have an higher "measure" ... but I'm
not blind, so as a lot of people on earth...

Quentin
Received on Tue Jun 21 2005 - 16:58:52 PDT