**From:** David Picón Álvarez (*eleuteri@myrealbox.com*)

**Date:** Fri Jun 22 2007 - 18:27:13 MDT

**Next message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "A very surreal day"**Previous message:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**In reply to:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Next in thread:**Mindaugas Indriunas: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Reply:**Mindaugas Indriunas: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*> Kolmogorov might dispute that: if you can simplify the universe by
*

describing it with models, and those models can also describe things that

don't exist in this universe, you haven't added any complexity to the

models.

Hmm, complexity is perhaps not the best word to use, I didn't mean it in the

technical sense. My meaning is that mathematics can describe factual things

and counterfactual things, all the possible worlds, not only the world that

is. So I would expect the size of things that are required for describing

mathematics to be bigger than the size of things required to describe the

universe (only a subset of mathematics).

--David.

**Next message:**Eliezer S. Yudkowsky: "A very surreal day"**Previous message:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**In reply to:**Byrne Hobart: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Next in thread:**Mindaugas Indriunas: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Reply:**Mindaugas Indriunas: "Re: Existential Risk and Fermi's Paradox"**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:58 MDT
*