On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 06:12:05PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi, > > Bruno wrote previously "...the physical reality has to be given by the > measure on all computations." Would this not imply that physical reality > has a zero measure? > > My point is that given that the chance of the occurrence of a physical > universe that matches one that can be modeled as some sequence in the UD > is, on average, 0. No? Ummm, should we infer from this that the physical > universe doesn't exist, unlike what my lying eyes are telling me? > > If taken seriously, this line of thinking would undermine physics > completely as it casts doubts up the veracity of any data. Why > bother measuring what doesn't exist?! > >
I don't see where you're going with this. With COMP, the chance of our physical reality appearing in UD* is 1. The only way it could be zero is if COMP is false. Where measure comes into it is what is the measure of our observations - that is necessarily a non-zero number as our observations will always be finite. It is important to work out what this measure is, as a relatively low measure for our observed reality would be an embarrassment for COMP. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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/d/optout.
