Hi Bruno,

    Interleaving some comments.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com ; Stephen Paul King 
  Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 1:51 PM
  Subject: Re: 3-PoV from 1 PoV?

  On 08 May 2009, at 17:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:

        I came upon the idea after considering how is it that the notion of an 
"objective reality" when we know for a fact that all of our knowledge does not 
come from any kind of direct contact with an "objective reality", at best it is 

  Yes. Even at the deepest level. Science transforms knowledge into belief by 
making us aware of the hypothetical nature of our mental construction.
  I would say that science is the condition of genuine faith or bets.


    Falsifiable bets. ;)

    Leibniz' Monadology can be considered as a way to think of this idea where 
each monad represents a 1-PoV. 

  Difficult to make sense. Leibniz is a complex and variable author. I have 
read the Monadology and consult some expert of Leibniz, but it remains hard to 
figure out how it works.


    Leibniz' Monadology is difficult to comprehend because he starts off with 
an inversion of the usual way of thinking about the world. By assuming that the 
observer's point of view is the primitive, it follows that the notions of space 
and time are secondary, "orderings", and not some independent substance or 

    A synchronization of many such 1PoV, given some simple consistensy 
requirements, would in the large number limit lead to a notion of a "common 
world of experience". 

  Don't you need some "common world of experience" to have a notion of 


    No, not if all of the structure that one might attribute to a "commn world 
of experience" is already within the notion of a monad. A Monad, considered in 
isolation, is exactly like an infinite quantum mechanical system. It has no 
definite set of particular properties, it has *all properties* as 
    What I am considering is to replace Leibniz' notion of a "pre-ordained 
harmony", his version of a a priori existing measure, I propose a notion of 
local ongoing process. A generalized notion of information processing or 
computation, for example. We see this idea expressed by David Deutsch in his 
book, The Fabric of Reality": "...think of all of our knowledge-generating 
processes, ...., and indeed the entire evolving biosphere as well, as being a 
gigantic computation. The whole thing is executiong a self-motivated, 
self-generating computer program. ... it is a virtual-reality program in the 
process of rendering, with ever increasing accuracy, the whole of existence." 
pg. 317-318
    When we consider an infinity of Monads, each, unless it is identical to 
some other, is at least infinitesimably different.  All of the aspects of a 
collections of Monads that are identical collapse into a single state, a notion 
of a background emerges from this. This idea is not different from the notion 
of a "collective unconsciousness" that some thinkers like Karl Jung have 
proposed. This leave us with finite distinctions between monads. Finite 
distictions leads us to notions of distinguishing finite processes, etc.
    The notion of "synchronization" is a figure of speach, a stand in, for that 
is called "decoherence" in QM theory. By seeing that the phase relations of 
many small QM systems tend to become entangled and no longed localizable, we 
get the notion of a classical finite world. This is a "bottom up" explanation.

    BTW: Notions, such as finitism, might be explained by intensionally 
neglecting any continuance of thought that takes one to the conclusion that 
infinities might actually exist!

        The 3PoV would follow from a form of inversion or reflection of a 1PoV. 
For example, we form thoughts of or fellow humans from our own experiences of 
ourselves. BTW: it seems to me that consciousness, at least, requires some form 
of dynamic self- modeling process. This implies that there is no such a thing 
as a static consciousness.

  I can agree. And you know the way I proceed. I start from elementary 
arithmetic, the 3-elementary ontology. If only because 99,9% of the humans 
agree on it, and it is already Turing universal and contains the whole 
universal deployment. The epistemology is given by adding some induction schema 
to the machine in there. It is illustrated by the going from Robinson 
arithmetic to Peano Arithmetic (emulated by Robinson arithmetic). It is enough 
to generate all "finite piece of histories", and we can get the many 1-pov by 
the "Theaetetical variant of the logic of provability/consistency ...

  So, if you agree that all dynamics are contained in the block-arithmetical 
truth, consciousness is indeed related to "internal information flux", and so 
we can say there is no static consciousness, in that sense. But here we mix the 
3-description with the 1-description, and from this we cannot conclude that we 
cannot have a conscious experience of static-ity or static-ness. With comp, 
just because it remains a lot of work, the question of traveling in many 
different physical directions is just open (obviously).


    But here is the problem I have, merely "agreeing" that "all dynamics are 
contained in the "block-arithmatic truth" will require me to neglect the 
computational complexity of that "Block Truth". 

    I had a conversation with Julian Barbour about this, trying to get him to 
aknowledge his own discussion of how computational intensive his own theory 
was/is,  and he simply refused to see. It is the same problem that Leibniz has 
with his notion of a "pre-ordained harmony". The computation of all possible 
combinations of events needed to find the one that is "most optimal" has 
already be proven to be intractible. Stephen Wolfram wrote of this: "...many 
physical systems are computationally irreducible, so that their own evolution 
is effectively the most efficient procedure for determining their future."


    The idea of a Platonic Universe of Arithmetical truth is a notion that is 
only coherent given the tacit assumption to some non-static process, such as 
that implicit in thought, also co-exists. A What requires a To Whom. Being is 
the Fixed-Point of Becoming.

        Re the UD Measure problem: The idea i have is that we either have our 
infinity within each Monad or try to find a way to derive a measure of the 
infinity without reference to the only source of definiteness that we have 
available: our conscious experience.

  If I interpret favorably what you say, this is the passage from UDA to AUDA, 
where I substitute "you working on UDA", by "the lobian universal machine 
working on UDA". 

  I don't insist on this because it can be misunderstood. AUDA looks like an 
elimination of the need to refer to "consciousness", but AUDA without a prior 
understanding of UDA, would be like a confusion between theology and computer 
science, comp can only relate them, not identify them it would be an error, 
explainable in AUDA (!!!!!), to confuse them. Only God confuses them; in  
sense, but a creature which confuses them is either a zombie, or a fake zombie, 
or a person eliminativist.

  You can regain consciousness in AUDA, by "defining" consciousness by the 
"belief (hope, bet, faith) in a reality".  But the bet is unconscious itself, 
and this is partially why we are bounded, at some level, to confuse this very 
basic belief with a knowledge. 

  Of course it is a knowledge, but only at the G* level, *we* cannot know that, 
once we bet there is a reality (whatever it is).

  All this does not mean that you could not try an alternate theory were the 
3-pov emerge from the 1-pov, but with comp, the basic ontology is very simple 
(numbers, addition and multiplication). And then 1-pov, or OMs, appears very 
sophisticated. They are given "intuitively" by all possible computations 
passing to a "current state", together with a topology derivable from the 
self-reference logic (I think you know that).



    The problem is that all notions such as "substitute", "misunderstood", 
"understanding", "emerge", etc. all require some form of non-staticness. Simple 
existence, "necessary possibility", is not enough. The comp model is 
wonderfull, but it requires an engine of implementation.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to