= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Open thread, Oct. 19 - Oct. 25, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (198)
Thanks to Turing completeness, there might be many possible worlds whose basic physics are much simpler than ours, but that can still support evolution and complex computations. Why aren't we in such a world? Some possible answers:
1) Luck
2) Our world has simple physics, but we haven't figured it out
3) Anthropic probabilities aren't weighted by simplicity
4) Evolution requires complex physics
5) Conscious observers require complex physics
Anything else? Any guesses which one is right?
Other answers I've considered:
o) Simpler universes are more likely, but complicated universes vastly outnumber simple ones. It's rare to be at the mode, even though the mode is the most common place to be.
p) Beings in simple universes don't ask this question because their universe is simple. We are asking this question, therefore we are not in a simple universe.
2') You don't spend time pondering questions you can quickly answer. If you discover yourself thinking about a philosophy problem, you should expect to be on the stupider end of entities capable of thinking about that problem.
n) The world is optimized for good theatre, not simplicity.
My guess is #2.
I'm of the opinion that there isn't going to be a satisfactory answer. It's true that the complexity of our universe makes it more likely that there's some special explanation, but sometimes things just happen. Why am I the me on October 21, and not the me on some other day? Well, it's a hard job, but someone's got to do it.
That's #1. It would be good to know exactly how lucky we got, though.
How do #1 and #3 differ? I think both are "yes, there are many such worlds - we happen to be in this one".
It doesn't sound impossible that anthropic probabilities are weighted by simplicity and we're lucky.
Hmm. I think "we're lucky" implies "probabilities are irrelevant for actual results", so it obsoletes #3.
I think "we're lucky" vs "simplicity is irrelevant" affects how much undiscovered complexity in physics we should expect.