Rather consistent with QBism in which QM predicts personal probabilities
of observations.
I wonder how much credence I should give to algorithmic probability? Is
this the only possible measure? How much does it depend on the choice
of Turing machine? Usually such questions are answerable only in the
limit n->oo; but is that legitimate in deriving physical reality?
Brent
On 6/27/2020 10:36 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
Brent,
It looks like you were right about the importance of including
environmental data in a brain simulation. Markus Muller uses
algorithmic information theory to argue that whether or not a
simulated brain is a zombie or not, depends on a large extent to the
degree in which environmental information is incorporated into the
simulation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1699&v=wsbNT3XEdsA&t=51m40s
(See 51 minutes 40 seconds in)
Jason
--
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 [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhmdHjJ4%3D9Mkm9dwxKSEwVEMcW_m9Ow2dVeFAz-dPCmHQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhmdHjJ4%3D9Mkm9dwxKSEwVEMcW_m9Ow2dVeFAz-dPCmHQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6024d47b-5bd1-d469-ce65-754a838688eb%40verizon.net.
