RE: Slashdot - The Computational Requirements for the Matrix

From: Robin Hanson (rhanson@gmu.edu)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 17:33:17 MDT

  • Next message: Rafal Smigrodzki: "Re: Protective coloration, was Re: Boy Genius or Craft Idiot?"

    Hal Finney wrote:
    >This is a commonly discussed question on the everything-list.
    >The consensus resolution is that simpler universes must be inherently
    >more probable. To provide an overly concise explanation, this can be
    >justified by imagining that universes correspond to computer programs that
    >describe the "laws of physics" and initial conditions for that universe.
    >Finite length programs can be thought of as prefixes of infinite length
    >strings. The measure of a program will be greater if it is shorter,
    >because then it is a prefix of proportionately more infinite strings.
    >Therefore shorter programs are of higher probability, and therefore
    >more lawful universes are inherently more probable. ...

    Why simpler things should be more likely is a deep and difficult topic,
    which I've read a bit on. But I just don't understand this argument.
    Why must universe A have a higher probability that universe B if the
    string describing A is a prefix for the string describing B?

    Robin Hanson rhanson@gmu.edu http://hanson.gmu.edu
    Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University
    MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444
    703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 17:46:09 MDT