= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Open Thread, November 16–30, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (213)
So, suppose you finally added that elusive last term in the equations of the Theory of Everything, and there is nothing to the Universe but "the behavior". You press "Run" and the computers running your model produce a beautiful multiverse out of nothing. Where are the computers and who pressed "Run" to create the universe we live in?
I don't know how to answer that.
To me, the hypothesis "X" where X is an event/behavior is simpler than "R(X)" where R is an overarching something that executes the rules of X. I should then prefer a model of the universe where there is no overarching thinghy that runs behaviors, just the behaviors behaving, over the other way around.
This sounds like there's just some confusion somewhere. If the behavior is a fundamental "Do(X)" and nothing else, then why does there need to be anything above or around that executes or hits run on the behaviors outside the simulation?
The ability to simulate X using R(X) is only very weak evidence that X requires R() (or any R' ) to function.