On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 7:48:01 PM UTC+1 Jesse Mazer wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 10:17 AM PGC <multipl...@gmail.com> wrote: Tegmark remains unclear on many issues that Bruno's approach addresses. Particularly on the questions of multiplicities of perspectives. And in his PhD, he tackles the question of different flavors of UD, with some being more efficient than others and avoiding redundancy of computations; therefore being more effective, if you will. And if it's those theories we're discussing on this list, then we should discuss them and not split hairs on collapse vs non-collapse, as that horse is long dead; baring some resuscitation or contradiction novelty. That's almost off-topic, if we mean ensemble theories like Bruno's, that make no-ontological commitments, What do you mean that Bruno's theory makes no ontological commitments? Apologies, I meant no unclear ontological commitments, as the general tendency is to remain vague and unclear about the question. Doesn't he assume that for every possible computation in the universal dovetailer that would correspond to some observer-moment, that observer-moment is "real"? while everybody here is trying to peddle the truth of their own. I stand by my conviction that the list in unmoderated form is losing value. Folks pushing delusions of grandeur, pretense towards sophistication, gift horses, aimless politics, and just plain old cherry picking + taking cheap shots out of context without specifying clearly the approach that we're leaning towards is *everything but* the original intention you reference. I agree with the general point that there is too much on the list that's unrelated to "everything" theories in the sense of assuming the existence of all members of a given mathematical class, like Schmidhuber/Tegmark/Marchal, but since every possible finite computation would presumably be performed somewhere in the Everett multiverse (and Deutsch showed on p. 11-13 of https://www.daviddeutsch.org.uk/wp-content/deutsch85.pdf that every finite quantum system can be perfectly simulated by a quantum or classical computer), Imho Bruno stays clear on the conjunction of weak arithmetical realism, Church Thesis, and *yes doctor* hypothesis and why these assumptions plus UD derivation result in "machines" discovering many histories/physics as a matter of psychology. You seem to assume both the existence of some given mathematical primitives/class and its "performance somewhere in the Everett multiverse". Why buy 2 when you can have it for the price of 1? You might try approaching his original papers and writing, beyond the list posts; although he does reference them there. the MWI be seen as a way of assigning a measure to the set of all computations, assuming the problem of deriving probabilities from the MWI is solvable (I pointed to what seems like a promising approach at https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/J1MyRnGtSIA/m/FbB3f-oeBwAJ and https://groups.google.com/g/everything-list/c/J1MyRnGtSIA/m/NTC3oZYiBwAJ ). And as a distant dream, perhaps it could someday be shown that this agrees with some other natural way of defining a measure on the set of all computations like Schmidhumber's speed prior at https://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/speedprior.html , so in effect one would then have a derivation of physics from a more mathematical ToE. Anyway if you look at the earliest posts on the list sorted by date at https://riceissa.github.io/everything-list-1998-2009/date.html you can see the Everett interpretation was regularly discussed, see for example the 1998 posts by Hal Finney and Wei Dai at https://riceissa.github.io/everything-list-1998-2009/0021.html and https://riceissa.github.io/everything-list-1998-2009/0039.html Nice to see those writings preserved there, but this list has advanced on many of these questions since then, with controversy around Bruno's notion of first person indeterminacy, to put it mildly. A notion I perceive in hints from Deutsch, Schmidhuber, Tegmark, and many others but upon seeing Bruno's take, don't find much reason to look back at, regardless of the obligatory amount of salt I have to take Bruno's approach with. It was only when I noted that the salt being the thing - doubt, non-literalism - that Bruno's work (building on the fields, standing on the shoulders of Plato to state-of-the-art logic/mathematical self-reference) rubs people the wrong way because a ToE not being served with it... would almost certainly be insulting. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fb17971f-e1cb-4227-80a7-2102c8fc3d60n%40googlegroups.com.
