Marchal wrote:

> Levy wrote:
>
> >We might as well take the bull by the horns! Let's be precise and expand the
> >English language. We can also expand French.

Since some French pronouns already end with s (nous, vous, ils/elles) I suggest we
add sh instead of a plain s. So in French we could have:
Jesh
Tush
Ilsh/Ellesh
Noush
Voush
Ilssh/Ellessh

We can do the same to English: It'll be easier to pronounce...maybe.
Ish (Eyesh)
Thoush
Hesh/Shesh
Wesh
Yoush
Theysh

> >
> >Singunal refers to one instance in the plenitude. Plenal refers to several
> >instances.

Correction using "sh"

> >Example of use:
> >Ish am a joker (in most worlds, eyesh am....)
> >Yoush are unlikely to be Belgian, more likely to be Chinese.
> >Hesh most probably had one winning lottery ticket.
> >Wesh are citizens of every country of earth.
> >Yoush (Western Europeans) have not all formed the EU.
> >Theysh (Aliens) have landed on the earth.
>
> I'm not sure it can have a semantics (meaning).

Then plenal nouns could end with sh as in:

Americansh discovered Europe in 1492

Could be that the semantics is related to Kripke's logic.... In which case, I've
just invented Kripkish. Kripkish is certainly more fun than the strange looking
characters you were writing like []p -> <>p


> That recalls us that the question of the number of persons
> is still an open problem. I mean I am not sure that Is (your plural
> for I) does not refer to all living beings of the multimulti...verse.
> I would say Is am Bruno as Is am George...

Ish am Napoleon. Yoush are Napoleon too!

As an observer performs an observation, there is a gradual loss of degree of
freedom as this observation changes from a third person observation to a first
person observation....It is due to the increase coupling between the frame of
reference of the observer and of the observed object.

> But where does such a loss of mutual degree of freedom come from? I think
> that Schmidhuberian prior is at play here. Linking relative complexity
> and the 3-measure on 1-experiences is the main difficulty.

I don't understand Schmidhuberian prior and the relative complexity.

> It seems you are confusing UD and G, my dear Udeorge!

Oops! You are right.

> Still, "physical pasts and futures" can be shown to be homogeinised in the
> whole UD*, in the wole block mindscape.

Homogenized - no lumps - like milk? You mean past and future are. unprivileged.
They are just points with equal satus in the plenitude. Measure is homogenized
too? In fact I agree with this in a relativistic fashion..... As I said long ago,
I think that measure of self is always the same as observed by the self,
independently of the observer's frame of reference. .. just like the speed of
light.

George

Reply via email to