On 28 December 2013 12:20, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 28 December 2013 11:55, Stephen Paul King >> <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi LizR, >>> >>> That is what is not explicitly explained! I could see how one might >>> make an argument based on Godel numbers and a choice of a numbering scheme >>> could show the existence of a string of numbers that, if run on some >>> computer, would generate a description of the interaction of several >>> actors. But this ignores the problems of concurrency and "point of view". >>> The best one might be able to do, AFAIK, is cook up a description of the >>> interactions of many "observers" -each one is an intersection of infinitely >>> many computations, but such a description would itself be the content of >>> some observer's point of view that assumes a choice of Godel numbering >>> scheme. >>> Something doesn't seem right about this! >>> >>> It seems to suggest "multi-solipsism" or something along those lines - >> which doesn't make it wrong, of course. >> >> I await Bruno's answer with interest. I think he has already said >> something about this, but I don't recall it being satisfactory, at least to >> my limited understanding. >> > > I am also interested to hear what Bruno has to say. My perspective is > that most of the computations that support you and I are not isolated and > short-lived "computational Boltzmann brains" but much larger, long-running > computations such as those that correspond to a universe in which life > adapts and evolves. The starting conditions for these is much less > constrained, and therefore it is far more probable to result in conscious > computations such as ours than the case where the computation supporting > your brain experiencing this moment is some initial condition of a very > specific program. Certainly, those programs exist too, but they are much > rarer. They appear in the UD much less frequently than say the program > corresponding to the approximate laws of physics of this universe. It > takes far more data to describe your brain than it does to describe the > physical system on which it is based. >
This sounds like a way to get Max Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis out of comp. It also sounds like a way to get Edgar Owen's cellular automaton universe, or whatever it should be called (though not the part about the present moment being the only thing that exists, but that's an unnecessary add-on anyway imho). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
