On 1/27/2013 6:54 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 1/27/2013 6:07 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Dear Bruno and Stephen,
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 6:27 PM, Stephen P. King
<stephe...@charter.net <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote:
On 1/27/2013 7:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The big bang remains awkward with computationalism. It
suggest a long and deep computations is going through our
state, but comp suggest that the big bang is not the
beginning.
Dear Bruno,
I think that comp plus some finite limit on resources =
Big Bang per observer.
Couldn't the Big Bang just be the simplest possible state?
Hi Telmo,
Yes, if I can add "...that a collection of observers can agree
upon" but that this simplest possible state is uniquely in the
past for all observers (that can communicate with each other)
should not be just postulated to be the case. It demands an
explanation.
It's uniquely in the past for all complex observers
Hi Telmo,
I would partition up "all possible observers" into mutually
communicating sets. Not all observers can communicate with each other
and it is mutual communication that, I believe, contains the complexity
of one's universe. Basically my reasoning forllows Wheeler's /It from
Bit/ idea.
because:
- It cannot contain a complex observer
How do we know this? We are, after all, speculating about what we
can only infer about given what we observe now.
- It is so simple that it is coherent with any history
Simplicity alone does not induce consistency, AFAIK...
That doesn't mean it's the beginning, just that it's a likely
predecessor to any other state.
> The word "predecessor' worries me, it assumes some way to
determine causality even when measurements are impossible. Sure, we
can just stipulate monotonicity of states, but what
> would be the gain?
I mean predecessor in the sense that there are plausible sequences of
transformations that it's at the root of. These transformations
include world branching, of course.
I am playing around with the possibility that monotonicity should
not be assumed. After all, observables in QM are complex valued and the
real numbers that QM predicts (as probabilities of outcomes) only obtain
when a basis is chosen and a squaring operation is performed. Basically,
that *is* is not something that has any particular ordering to it. Here
I am going against the arguments of many people, including Julian Barbour.
The more complex a state is, the smaller the number of states
that it is likely to be a predecessor of.
Sure, what measure of complexity do you like? There are many
and if we allow physical laws to vary, infinitely so... I like the
Blum and Kolmogorov measures, but they are still weak...
I had Kolmogorv in mind and it's the best I can offer. I agree, it's
still week and that's a bummer.
Maybe we should drop the desiderata of a measure and focus on the
locality of observers and its requirements.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
