If someone hiking along the twisting highway that follows the cliffs in 
Northern Italy or coastal California, high above the sea, should reach a point 
that protrudes so far out that looking back, he can see the entire route he had 
traversed during the previous hour including every waypoint, landmark, outcrop, 
distinctive rock or tree; and he remembered passing each place sequentially, 
would this not count as strong evidence that the past is real?     m.a.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bruno Marchal 
  To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 1:17 PM
  Subject: Re: The past hypothesis

  On 03 May 2010, at 01:20, Brent Meeker wrote:

    On 5/2/2010 3:33 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

      On 02 May 2010, at 20:30, Brent Meeker wrote:

        On 5/2/2010 1:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 

          On 01 May 2010, at 22:02, Brent Meeker wrote:

            On 5/1/2010 12:25 PM, Rex Allen wrote: 
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
  This argument is not
definitive mainly because we don't have a definitive theory of
consciousness, but to the extent we assume a physical basis for
consciousness it seems pretty good.
    Ha!  As long as you assume there is no problem of consciousness, then
there's no problem!  That is pretty good.

  So you do have a theory of consciousness in which we can have timeless 

          DM (digital mechanism, comp ...) entails somehow that all thought are 

        That's one of the assumptions of DM, that thoughts are states.  But 
that seems doubtful to me.  At the "substitution level" there are states, but 
those are too finely divided to correspond to thoughts.

      Thought are not state. Thought correspond to infinities of sequences of 
states: at least one for any universal machine, given that the UD run all UDs 
executed by all universal machines. This makes a lot of number relations 
involved in the epistemological existence of (conscious, first person) thought. 
The thought are really in the abstract structures realized by those infinities 
of sequences of states. Now, all this is defined already in Platonia and is 
timeless. Time belongs to the thought, it is part of the qualia.

    Ok.  So sequence is part of thought, and I suppose that supplies the 
direction of time we experience with the thought.  So while the thought, as 
described in Platonia, is timeless it's experienced as timed because of the 
sequential structure.

  OK. And the finite sequences are determined by the usual relations provable 
in (Robinson) arithmetic: 0 < 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 5 < 6 < ...

          But thoughts related to universal machines which makes them felt as 
being embedded in time-structure.
          Amazingly enough some plants can make you live timeless consciousness 
(google on salvia divinorum reports). Despite DM, I thought such experience was 
not "memorizable", but apparently they are.

    Are these timeless thoughts expressible in sentences? or are they like 

  I have to say that is unlike anything you can conceive, even after "living 
that". It looks more like a new qualia, where reason suggests that no qualia 
can be there, except perhaps in the form of a (sudden) remembering of a "true" 
(eternal/invariant/unmovable) identity which has just nothing to do with time, 
space, images, sound, even numbers. Ineffable is the usual rendering.

  Let me try an image of some predecessor altered conscious state: It may be 
described as seing your "body-and-soul" as a window on reality, and you cease 
to identify yourself with that body-and-soul, but you identify "yourself" to 
the one who look through the windows, and actually "your current window", which 
appears as contingent. This is made possible by amnesy and/or dissociation from 
your memory/memories.

          Let me make some comments related to other posts:

          About TS (technological singularity): I have a theory according to 
which this happens each time an universal entity generates an universal entity. 
In that sense the following are probable examples of TS:

          - the big bang (in the theories where that exists)
          - the origin of life
          - the origin of brain
          - the origin of thought
          - the origin of languages
          - the origin of computers/universal machine
          - the origin of programming languages

          All those TS, and infinitely many others, exist out of time and space 
in any unravelling of arithmetical truth.

          The Löbian machine is the most intelligent entities that can exist, 
but "programming it" make it a slave, and its "soul falls".
          What some people call TS is not when machine will be as clever as us, 
but as stupid as us, probably. Stupidity develops when we confuse competence 
and intelligence. Intelligence is needed to develop competence, but competence 
has a negative feedback on intelligence.

          About BB (Boltzmann brains):
          BB provide a physicalist rendering of the (mathematical) UD paradox. 
The UD, and thus elementary arithmetic, generates all BB's states, in 
infinitely many histories. You can extract the measure on them by the use of 
the logic of arithmetical self-reference, 

        What measure is that? 

      The one which extends the 'measure one' given by S4grz1, or/and Z1*, 
or/and X1*.That is, the material hypostases. The measure exists if the 
arithmetical quantum logic, (with quantization of p defined by BDp, with B and 
D the box and diamond of S4grz1 or/and Z1* or/and X1*) fulfills von Neumann 
criterion for being the "right' quantum logic: it defines the orthostructure on 
which a "theorem of Gleason" makes it possible to extend the measure 1-calculus 
into the full calculus (measure in [0 1]).

    Doesn't that require a continuous probability operator?  How is that 
consistent with the digital nature of comp?

  It is a consequence of the  first person indeterminacy. The UD multiplies all 
computations, belonging to the domain of indeterminacy, by 2^aleph_0. It is a 
point I have discussed a long time ago with Schmidhuber on this list.

  The UD dovetails on all finite pieces of computations using the real number 
as oracle. Although the set of real numbers is not enumerable, the UD can 
dovetail on *all* real numbers, that is it can generate all real numbers, or 
all infinite binary sequences:

  The idea is to see a finite initial sequence as a name for all sequences 
having the same beginning.

  0    (here I have succeed in generating the first digit of all sequences 
beginning by 0 (a non enumerable set!))

  1  (and here another infinity!)

  00 (and here another one)

  01 (and here another one)

  10 (and here another one)

  11 (and here another one)



  Even algorithmically incompressible sequences are eventually generated, bit 
by bit. There is no contradiction, because a sequence is said non compressible 
if the shorter program generating it, *and only it* is about the same size of 
the sequence. Here, the trick is that we generate all sequences, finite pieces 
by finite pieces.

  From a third person point of view, this is equivalent with the generation of 
all finite binary sequence, but ...

  ... your first person indeterminacy is invariant for the delay of the UD 
generating all those piece of computations. So we have to take them all, and 
the measure will be defined on all computations going through your states, 
including those dovetailing on the reals. Applying the rule Y = II, that is 
looking in the consciousness-differentiation 'picture' instead of the 
"bifurcating realities", you see that the first person (plural) indeterminacy 
is defined a priori on a non enumerable structure.

  It is different but comparable to Skolem paradox, where an enumerable model 
of ZF exists. From inside that model, many non enumerable set exists, and the 
model (universe) itself is non enumerable. But it may be said to be an illusion 
from inside. We, outside the model we see bijection between the "non enumerable 
set" of the model, and N. But we can see that those bijection does not belong 
to the model. They go out and in the model, so that the creature in the model 
cannot see them, and are correct when proving those set to be non enumerable.

  But here, with the UD, it is different. The non enumerability comes from the 
limiting use of the first person non awareness of any UD time steps, and the 
fact that the UD and UDs dovetails on the reals (and the octonions, etc.).

  That's the UDA-type of explanation. Now, there is a more formal reason 
reason: why would the model of the material 'hypostases", that is the (non 
Kripke) semantics of the X1*, or Z1* be digital instead of continuous? There is 
no reason. The fact that we loose the necessitation rules favor more 
topological semantical structures.

  Dont hesitate to ask any further questions.



  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 
  For more options, visit this group at 

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to