I think there is a need for one more person. This is how I would define first person pov and third person pov:

Third person is a single history pov that requires the observation of an event whose existence does not correlate with the existence of the observer. This is the classical, objective, scientific pov.

First person is a single history pov that requires the observation of an event whose existence correlates with the existence of the observer. Thus in a Quantum suicide experiement the bomb never goes off from the first person pov but almost always goes off from the third person pov.

The additional required person(s) is/are the plural, in which one would be aware of all the histories. There may even be a need for a first person plural and a third person plural:  in other words, even in the plural our observation of multiple histories may be affected if the event we are observing bears on our own existence. This is the pov in experiments involving quantum superposition.

Tom, your definition of 3rd person is more like my definition of 3rd person plural.
First person is a single history and corresponds to: "I" AND "the bomb does not go off.".
Third person is a single history and corresponds to "I" AND the bomb goes off/probability{bomb goes off}.
Plural person is multiple histories regarding the bomb, and corresponds to "I" AND ("the bomb goes off" inclusive OR "the bomb does not go off".) = "I"

George Levy


Tom Caylor wrote:
Bruno,

I have a couple of random thoughts, but I hope they are not too
incoherent (decoherent?) for someone to understand and see if it leads
anywhere.

First, it seems that the comp distinction between 1st and 3rd person
point-of-view can be expressed roughly as OR vs. AND respectively.  In
other words, from the 1st person pov, I am either in one history OR the
other (say Moscow or Washington).  From the 3rd person pov, someone is
both in one history AND the other history at the same time (perhaps
like quantum superposition?).  Now roughly when we OR independent
probabilities we use ADDITION, and when we AND them we use
MULTIPLICATION.  This rings a bell with Godel's sufficiently rich set
of axioms.  It similarly rings a bell with the prime numbers.  Could
there be a connection here through this means?

Secondly, conversely to your thoughts, perhaps given the above
connection to help out, could the proof of the Riemann Hypothesis
supply the elimination of white rabbits from comp?

Tom




  


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to