Hi Liz >> I'm not sure I follow.
Me neither. >> wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that >> the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros >> occurring about 50% of the time." there would be no 'about' it were your interpretation right, Liz. It would be all the time, exactly 50%. Hes saying that zeros occur about 50%of the time in the zeros and ones you have written down. That corresponds to the individual bit strings. Not the entire collection of them. >> I guess the sloppy phrasing is he implies 0s happen half the time in most >> sequences? I suspect its sloppy interpretation rather than sloppy phrasing that implies that. >> I don't know if that is true (it's true for 6 of the 16 sequences above) 6/16 isn't half is it? I measured 1 divided by 2 just now and it still seems to come out as 0.5 here. >> or if it becomes more true (or almost true) with longer sequences. Maybe a >> mathematician can enlighten me? I wrote a little program Liz that collects together all the bit strings that can be made from 16 bits. Then it counts the number of 1s and 0s in each one. It has a little counter that goes up by one every time there are 8 zeros. there are 65536 combinations. 12870 of them have 8 zeros. 12870 / 65536 * 100 = 19%. 6/16*100 = 37% I don't know about you but 19, being less than 37, suggests to me that the percentage is going down. But ofcourse ask a mathematician if you're not certain of that yourself. >> I admit Max seems a little slapdash in how he phrases things in the chapters >> I've read so far, presumably because he's trying to make his subject matter >> seem more accessible. Yeah, which is preferable to people with similar ideas being slap dash in order to make them less accessible. Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 22:13:28 -0600 Subject: Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3 From: jasonre...@gmail.com To: everything-list@googlegroups.com On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy <multiplecit...@gmail.com> wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: I came upon an interesting passage in "Our Mathematical Universe", starting on page 194, which I think members of this list might appreciate: "It gradually hit me that this illusion of randomness business really wasn't specific to quantum mechanics at all. Suppose that some future technology allows you to be cloned while you're sleeping, and that your two copies are placed in rooms numbered 0 and 1 (Figure 8.3). When they wake up, they'll both feel that the room number they read is completely unpredictable and random. If in the future, it becomes possible for you to upload your mind to a computer, then what I'm saying here will feel totally obvious and intuitive to you, since cloning yourself will be as easy as making a copy of your software. If you repeated the cloning experiment from Figure 8.3 many times and wrote down your room number each time, you'd in almost all cases find that the sequence of zeros and ones you'd written looked random, with zeros occurring about 50% of the time. In other words, causal physics will produce the illusion of randomness from your subjective viewpoint in any circumstance where you're being cloned. The fundamental reason that quantum mechanics appears random even though the wave function evolves deterministically is that the Schrodinger equation can evolve a wavefunction with a single you into one with clones of you in parallel universes. So how does it feel when you get cloned? It feels random! And every time something fundamentally random appears to happen to you, which couldn't have been predicted even in principle, it's a sign that you've been cloned." While reading, do you get a sense that he points towards how this might potentially weaken digital physics/functionalism in their strong sense? I haven't gotten that sense yet, but I am only about half way through. That digital physics implies comp, which implies vast non computable parts of reality, which rules out stronger forms of interpreting digital physics/functionalism? Because in this quoted passage he just references the teleportation ambiguity, as many have. I'd want to know if he dug a bit deeper. PGC There are some leaps he seems unwilling to make, like QTI. Yet, if he thinks all mathematical structures exist, and if he believes in the CTM, then shouldn't he also believe every conscious state has at least some computational continuation somewhere in this infinite reality that contains everything? Jason -- 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. -- 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.
