The answer is probably something along the lines of:
OM with lots of sighted observers (as well as the odd blind one) will
have lower complexity than OMs containing only blind observers (since
the latter do not seem all that probable from an evolutionary point of
view).
Given there are so many sighted observers around, then it is not
surprising if we're sighted.
This argument is a variation of the argument for why we find so many
observers in our world, rather than being alone in the universe, and
is similar to why we expect the universe to be so big and old.
Of course this argument contains a whole raft of ill-formed
assumptions, so I'm expecting Jonathin Colvin to be warming up his
keyboard for a critical response!
Cheers.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 10:56:48PM +0200, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> 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
--
*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 Tue Jun 21 2005 - 20:30:41 PDT