On 06 Jan 2010, at 20:18, Brent Meeker wrote:

Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Jan 2010, at 19:59, Brent Meeker wrote:

Nick Prince wrote:
Is this because you think of your stream of consciousness as somehow
like a reel of film?  All the individual pictures could be cut from
the reel and laid out any which way but the implicit order is always
there.  I can understand this because all the spatio temporal
relationships for the actors in the film remain "normal" i.e obey the
laws of physics.

But there's the rub.  Why the laws of physics?  That's what somehow
needs to be explained. Is there something about the UD that necessarily
generates law like sequences of states with high probability?

By definition, the UD "generates" all and only the (computable) law like sequences.

But only "law like" in the sense of being computable. Not necessarily "law like" in conserving momentum in a 4-space with Lorentzian signature.

Yes. Other high level laws can emerge from the computable, note.

The UD executes all programs. It generates all the possible computations, those which terminate and those which don't terminate. It is well defined mathematically, with respect to many equivalence results, closure results, Church thesis, etc.

Yes, I understand that.

A notion like "consistent extension" makes sense only for the "persons" relatively appearing "in" deeper computations, so the precise relation between "consistent extensions" and the UD needs the use of the Gödel Löb provability logics.

So do they allow a definition of "consistent extensions" such that "persons" can be identified with sequences of consistent extensions and those "persons" will define one or more universes in terms of intersubjective agreement?

Yes. Like "Brent + "I am in Moscow"" and "Brent + "I am in Washington" can appear to be to consistent extension of "Brent + "I am in Brussels"". Consistency is a personal and relative notion. "Brent + "I am in Moscow"" makes "I am in Moscow"" consistent with "Brent". "Brent" here denotes your set of beliefs, not your body.

 That's where you lose me - I don't see how this is to be done.

It is counter-intuitive (or better counter-Aristotelian-intuitive). But *you* are losing me. I don't see how we can avoid this, once "saying "yes" to the doctor. More in the post to Nick.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to