"According to whim or taste" implies a conscious entity performing
choices according to a free will. This need not be the case. In my
mind, random means selected without cause (or without
procedure/algorithm).
A lot has been written on randomness, and its problematic nature. I
don't for one minute suggest I have anything new to say on the
matter.
Cheers
jamikes wrote:
>
> Dear Russell and Hal,
> this is a naive question, however it goes into the basics of your written
> explanations. How would YOU define "random"? I had this problem for a long
> long time and never got a satisfactory solution. In my (non Indo-European)
> language, Hungarian, there is no exact word for it, it is used as a term
> meaning "according to whim or taste" (tetszöleges) - which leaves open that
> I may not LIKE the 'random' in question. If you say: a sequence defying all
> rules, then it is not random, it is calculable. You have to consider all
> rules and cut them out. Is a series of 11111... random? of course it may be.
> Is the pi-decimal random? no, because it is a result of calculation. If one
> says: "just pick it" that would follow all circumstantial pressure of the
> situation, maybe unconsciously, yet defying the 'random'.
>
> So what is the content you use behind that word?
>
> I would be surprised if both of you (and others, too) would agree <G>.
> Till then I wish you luck to use the word - at random.
>
> Best wishes
> John Mikes
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 4:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Predictions & duplications
> >>>>>>>SNIP<<<<<<<<<
>
>
> > That is almost the correct solution, Hal. If we ask what an observer
> > will make of a random description chosen at random, then you get
> > regular universes with probability exponentially related to the
> > inferred complexity. It is far clearer to see what happen when the
> > observer is a UTM, forcibly terminating programs after a
> > certain number of steps (representing the observer's resource bound)
> > (thus all descriptions are halting programs). Then one obtains a
> > Solomon-Levy distribution or universal prior. However, this argument
> > also works when the observer is not a UTM, but simply a classification
> > device of some kind.
> >
> > The WAP has nothing to do with this issue, except inasmuch as
> > universes can only be observed through the eyes of some observer.
> >
> > Again I reiterate that Juergen's resource-bounded "Great Programmer"
> > religion need be nothing but a reflection of our conscious selves stamped
> > upon our observations.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > Juergen writes:
> > > > Some seem to think that the weak anthropic principle explains the
> > > > regularity. The argument goes like this: "Let there be a uniform
> measure
> > > > on all universe histories, represented as bitstrings. Now take the
> tiny
> > > > subset of histories in which you appear. Although the measure of this
> > > > subset is tiny, its conditional measure, given your very existence,
> > > > is not: According to the weak anthropic principle, the conditional
> > > > probability of finding yourself in a regular universe compatible with
> > > > your existence equals 1."
> > > >
> > > > But it is essential to see that the weak anthropic principle does not
> > > > have any predictive power at all. It does not tell you anything about
> > > > the future. It cannot explain away futures in which you still exist
> > > > but irregular things happen. Only a nonuniform prior can explain this.
> > >
> > > Isn't this fixed by saying that the uniform measure is not over all
> > > universe histories, as you have it above, but over all programs that
> > > generate universes? Now we have the advantage that short programs
> > > generate more regular universes than long ones, and the WAP grows teeth.
> > >
> > > Hal Finney
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119
> (mobile)
> > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
> > Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Room 2075, Red Centre
> http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
