Russell Standish wrote

>Marchal wrote:
>> Russell Standish wrote:
>> >I raised this very issue in "Why Occams Razor", and came to the
>> >conclusion that the only satisfactory "interpreter" is the observer
>> >itself.
>> And so the question resumes into 'what is the observer itself'.
>> I propose the answer 'the self-referentially sound Lobian machine' (LM).
>At this stage, I believe this is but one answer as to what an observer
>is. Noone has proved that Bruno's Loebian machine satisfies my
>"postulates of consciousness" (CLASSIFICATION, TIME and PROJECTION),
>however it seems likely (the first two look like fairly trivial
>properties of a Turing automata, and maybe one gets PROJECTION from the
>UDA). I suspect many models of the observer are possible, including
>non-deterministic ones.

Mmmh... Remember that all self-referentially correct machine able
to prove elementary statement in classical logic are provably Loebian.

The key thing: those machine are humble and does not prove that 
what is provable by them is true in general. For instance they can 
infer the danger of communicating that they are 
consistent. (G proves []<>t -> []f).

Of course other models exist. The purely intuitionistic (solipsist)
machine does not (directly) obey G and G*.

We do get PROJECTION from UDA indeed, if I understand what you mean
exactly by that.

We do get a promising (imho) road toward SWE also. A road which does
not take any mathematical presupposition for granted except number


Reply via email to