On Fri, Feb 7, 2020, 7:22 AM TimTyler <t...@tt1.org> wrote: > > We don't know that "Occam's Razor drives physics". That's a hypothesis, and > > while we can't get out of our local region and escape from what appear to > be > > our physical laws, it is an untestable one, and so is of little interest. > If Occam's Razor were false, then by the no free lunch theorem we could not know anything at all. But if we assume it to be true, then it constrains physics to those universes where it can exist. In particular:
1. There must be a means to perform computation. 2. Therefore there must be a means to store information. 3. Therefore time must have a direction. (Writing a bit is a one way operation). 4. Therefore time must exist. Occam's Razor makes predictions. It wouldn't make sense to say it exists in a world where predictions could not be computed and stored, or if there were no past or future. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are both symmetric with regard to time, which violates (3). They don't explain why the universe is at less than maximum entropy, which is why these 4 conditions hold for now. (They won't after the heat death of the universe). There is no fundamental reason to believe that a program could not simulate the universe you observe. There are many programs consistent with your observations. 1. Only your mind exists and all sensory input is simulated by a 1 GB program. 2. The physics of 10^12 galaxies are simulated by a 1 KB program. 3. All possible Turing machines are enumerated by a simple one line program. You can't test among these alternative hypotheses any better than assuming 3 is the most likely by Occam's Razor. But all of science is like that. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T353f2000d499d93b-M0fa336d4cadaab2f8f042437 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
