**From:** Ben Goertzel (*ben@goertzel.org*)

**Date:** Sun Apr 27 2003 - 20:12:34 MDT

**Next message:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Infinite universe"**Next in thread:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*> > 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.
*

yeah... I think I see the point ... but I'm still not sure I like it!

As I understand it, the point is that assuming the existence of *all

possible finite universes* consistent with observed reality may well be

simpler than assuming the existence of *some particular* finite universe

consistent with observed reality...

If one views this in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, then one says: The

program to generate all possible finite universes consistent with observed

reality may be very short, whereas the program to generate some particular

finite universe consistent with observed reality may be long due to

requiring a lot of details.... (This relates to Juergen Schmidhuber's ideas

on "God as a Programmer")

Note, however, that the story becomes different if one includes runtime in

one's assessment of program complexity (instead of just program length as in

Kolmogorov complexity). The program that iterates through all possible

universes is pretty slow, compared to the one that generates some particular

possible universe in all its details.

So, the practical application of occam's razor here seems to depend upon the

details.... Which is the point at which we transition from speculative

philosophy to speculative physics, I suppose.

-- Ben G

**Next message:**Perry E. Metzger: "Re: Infinite universe"**Previous message:**Ben Goertzel: "RE: Infinite universe"**In reply to:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "Re: Infinite universe"**Next in thread:**Perry E. Metzger: "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
*