= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dagon 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?
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.