Ok, I think I understand it a bit better now. But one thing I’d like to note is that UDASSA wasn’t “zoomed out”. One cool feature of the UD is that, given enough observations from our universe (but not the laws of physics), it’ll reconstruct the right distribution for more observations from our universe. It doesn’t need separate levels for “universes” and “stuff within a universe”, it just does everything on one level. So if you replace it with a two-level system, that might be a bit unsatisfying.
Yeah, that’s a good point—I should clarify that. Technically, I’m not summing over universes either (that’s why I said “roughly speaking” earlier), but over all possible computations that lead to my observations, just like UDASSA.
The crux in whether this reconstructs reasonable actions / betting odds (e.g. that it generally converges with quantum mechanics) too is what I mentioned in the post—whether it reconstructs some version of a simplicity prior.
Ok, I think I understand it a bit better now. But one thing I’d like to note is that UDASSA wasn’t “zoomed out”. One cool feature of the UD is that, given enough observations from our universe (but not the laws of physics), it’ll reconstruct the right distribution for more observations from our universe. It doesn’t need separate levels for “universes” and “stuff within a universe”, it just does everything on one level. So if you replace it with a two-level system, that might be a bit unsatisfying.
Cool, thank you for putting in the effort!
Yeah, that’s a good point—I should clarify that. Technically, I’m not summing over universes either (that’s why I said “roughly speaking” earlier), but over all possible computations that lead to my observations, just like UDASSA.
The crux in whether this reconstructs reasonable actions / betting odds (e.g. that it generally converges with quantum mechanics) too is what I mentioned in the post—whether it reconstructs some version of a simplicity prior.