The Kolmogorov complexity language dependent constant for x86, C, or English is large, on the order of 10^6 to 10^9 bits. That's why I suggested an enumeration of all possible universes. Computing power doesn't matter. Occam's Razor favors slower programs over faster because of size-speed trade-offs. It favors bigger universes over smaller (the big bang is a black hole in a larger universe) because it takes more bits to specify the location of a smaller universe regardless of the language.
It also favors a multiverse over a single universe, regardless of language. If the masses of the proton and neutron were slightly different, then stars would be dead or supernovas wouldn't produce the right elements to support life. If the mass of the election were different, then carbon wouldn't produce complex molecules at temperatures where water is liquid. The simplest explanation for why they have the masses they do is that all possible universes exist and we must observe one where life can evolve. On Sun, Oct 6, 2019, 10:38 PM Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote: > *** > But suppose you enumerated all possible universes and ran the n'th one > for n steps. Ours would be n ~ 10^120 steps, or about 400 bits. > *** > > Perhaps so, but on a current standard computer it would take more than > 400 bits to code the universe-simulator ;) > > So the 400 bits figure presumes the computer decoding those bits has a > fairly sophisticated general-purpose universe-simulator running on it, > I'd say... > > Specifying the constants in the standard model only gives you an > approximation of our universe in the context of a computer with a > differential-equations solver or similar on it, which probably also is > longer than 400 bits to code on current computer architectures... > > Just sayin'... > > I agree with your conceptual point though, so mostly I'm just > nitpicking ... but also it's kind of interesting to me (as a human > with some trivial and silly interests ;) whether it's 400, 4000, > 400000 or 4000000 bits to really simulated our universe on a > standard-issue PC with a lot of auxiliary memory... > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:32 PM TimTyler <t...@tt1.org> wrote: > > > > On 2019-10-06 06:05:AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019, 2:59 AM Ben Goertzel <b...@goertzel.org> wrote or > quoted Matt as writing: > >> > It probably takes a few hundred bits to describe the laws of physics. > >> > > Hmm, that seems very few, just taking a look at the Standard Model > and > >> > > General Relativity right now... > > > > > > Yudkowsky and Wolfram seem to think so. I don't know their exact > reasoning, but it probably takes 400 bits to describe the 40 or so free > parameters in string theory from which all the fundamental physical > constants and properties of the fundamental particles could be derived. > > > > > > Those guys don't know either. We don't really know what the laws of > physics are yet. > > > > It seems a bit premature to speculate about their complexity. -- > > > > __________ > > |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ > > > > Artificial General Intelligence List / AGI / see discussions + > participants + delivery options Permalink > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > “The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to > live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same > time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, > burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders > across the stars.” -- Jack Kerouac ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T8eabd59f2f06cc50-M71887ee28dd78e0a7b988163 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
