cousin_it comments on Another attempt to explain UDT - Less Wrong

35 Post author: cousin_it 14 November 2010 04:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (50)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 14 November 2010 09:00:27PM *  2 points [-]

If the weights are probabilities, then what are they probabilities of? On some level, the notion of a computation "being" in one specific universe is incoherent. A sorting algorithm that is invoked to sort the array (1,3,2) finds itself simultaneously "in" all the universes that run it. From the computation's point of view, there really is no fact of the matter as to "where" it is. Grasping this idea while thinking of your own thought process as a computation can really blow a person's mind :-)

UDT doesn't require the Solomonoff prior, it's fine with whatever prior you choose. We already know that the Solomonoff prior can't be the final solution, because it depends on the choice of programming langage (or universal machine). Me, I don't like these huge priors. Applying UDT to little toy problems is mathematically interesting enough for me.