RE: Fabric of Reality
James wrote : >So why don't you agree with the 1-bit idea? > >> -Original Message- >> From:Marchal [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >> Sent:Friday, October 08, 1999 11:50 AM >> To: Higgo James; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' >> Subject: RE: Fabric of Reality >> >> >Well, there is one bit of information in the universe - 'something >> exists' >> >could be 1 or 0. It is 1. >> >James >> >> I don't agree. The power of the All Universe Hypothesis (AUH) or of the >> plenitude principle (arithmetical or not) is that the information >> is typically 1-person point of view information. >> >> So with AUH-like approach we have a 3-person O information theory >> explaining why the embedded observer lives with many (1-person) >> information. >> >> This is also one of the oldest argument in favour of the MWI appearing in >> this list. If I remember correctly, it was put by Hal Finney. >> >> Bruno The idea is that there is no information in a classical tautology. Now either the universe exist or it doesn't exist. There is no information in that last sentence. I say there is no 3-information. You can see that ``or" as a kind of branching. In the branch where the universe exists the people believe there is information, but it is just 1-information. Of course in the branch where the universe doesn't exist, there is no people to realise it. This illustrates that 0 3-information (All universe exists, the empty theory which is satisfied in all models) could make 1 bit 1-information. So I agree with your 1-bit information, but it is 1-information, which is explainable in a O bit 3-information theory. (1-information = information from the first person point of view, 3-information = information from the third person point of view) Bruno
Re: Fabric of Reality
Russell Standish: >In any case, the most important message is that to construct a TOE, we >need to jump out of the physics perspective. I agree so much. See also "laws without laws" by J. H. Wheeler. There is an interesting (but wrong IMHO) answer by Deutsch. >However, I don't believe >that the four strands he picks (QM, Church's thesis, Evolution and >Popperian falsification) are the correct components. I suspect we have >a better integration in this mailing list. Definitely QM is in, >likewise information and computation theory (not just the >Church-Turing thesis), Deutsch present his "Church Turing principle" as a physical version of Church's thesis. This is terribly misleading even for someone who believe that physical science is fundamental. >From now on I will always say "Deutsch thesis" for his "Church Turing principle". Deutsch thesis is intrinsically very interesting but is completely independant (a priori) from Church's thesis. I suspect that Church's thesis could very well entails the falsity of Deutsch thesis. >I suspect that evolution is a second order >phenomena (in the sense that hydrodynamics is a second order theory of >molecular dynamics). I don't really see where Popperian epistemology >fits in, except as a theory of evolution about knowledge - almost a >third order theory??. Remember that with Pure COMP (as opposed to Mallah's Physical COMP), in some sense Psychology is O-order and particules Physics is very high-order. Bruno.
Re: tautology
Chris Maloney wrote: >This harkens back to a thread I started some time ago about our universe >being the one, or among the ones, that admit the most SASs. Clearly the >number of observer-moments among the human race is vast, if you assume the >MWI. Most people replied that they thought it was of the order aleph-0 >(countable) or C (the continuum). If you assume comp, and that any two >implementations of the same Turing machine are identical (which I would) >then the number must be aleph-0, right? Not right. There are reasons with comp to quantify on the infinite histories of machines. So with comp the answer should be C. Bruno
RE: Fabric of Reality
>Well, there is one bit of information in the universe - 'something exists' >could be 1 or 0. It is 1. >James I don't agree. The power of the All Universe Hypothesis (AUH) or of the plenitude principle (arithmetical or not) is that the information is typically 1-person point of view information. So with AUH-like approach we have a 3-person O information theory explaining why the embedded observer lives with many (1-person) information. This is also one of the oldest argument in favour of the MWI appearing in this list. If I remember correctly, it was put by Hal Finney. Bruno
