**From:** Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (*sentience@pobox.com*)

**Date:** Sun Apr 27 2003 - 18:32:54 MDT

**Next message:**Simon Gordon: "RE: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Ben Goertzel wrote:

*>
*

*> I was just reacting to the notion that the integers as a whole are "simpler"
*

*> than individual large integers. While this statement reflects a deep
*

*> mathematical fact, it's also a bit of a play on words, as the mathematical
*

*> notion of simplicity involved is somewhat counterintuitive, and it not the
*

*> only interesting mathematical notion fo simplicity...
*

But, continuing through from the original thread of discussion, my point

is that assuming the existence of other universes can render the

description "simpler" in that sense which Occam's Razor requires. We do

not suppose that objects stop existing even if they should happen to

accelerate out of our hubble bubble and become theoretically unobservable,

because to make this assumption would complicate the laws of physics.

-- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence

**Next message:**Simon Gordon: "RE: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**In reply to:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**Next in thread:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**Reply:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:42 MDT
*