On 04 Jan 2011, at 12:03, Kim Jones wrote:

## Advertising

On 04/01/2011, at 9:11 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:3-OM are discrete (assuming mechanism)1-OM does not need to be. The measure bears on the 1-OM, and isrelated to the measure on all infinite computational histories(including oracles), and this is a set of cardinality 2^aleph_0,and the topology is unknown, but it is more plausible that the setof 1-OM is a non discrete structure, like most possible notion ofsubjective and physical time.So the experience of the continuous, the analog experience of timeis subjective - an 'interpretation' that my mind supplies(?).

`That is right at some level of description. It is similar with the`

`feeling that a movie is showing us continuous deformations, when we`

`know that it is digital. In that case the continuum can be said to be`

`created by your mind.`

`But if the "ultimate reality" is arithmetical truth, or just the tiny`

`part of it constituting the deployment of the universal dovetailing,`

`there is a sense to say that the continuum you are confronted with`

`"really exist" independently of yourself, as far as you allow a`

`reality for the conscious first person experience. This is a`

`consequence of your global indeterminacy with respect of *all*`

`computations.`

Imagine the work of the UD.

`It is a working execution of one program: the UD. (be it emulated in`

`arithmetical truth or in a physical universe: this does not matter for`

`the present point).`

`The UD gives a first notion of universal discrete time: the steps of`

`the UD. Let us call that the UD-time. (Or second if you take the first`

`to be 0, 1, 2, 3, ... (the succession of the natural numbers itself)).`

`Now, remember what the UD is doing. It generates the first program P_0`

`(in some universal language, or in RA, or PA, of fortran or lisp,`

`etc.), then the first input, 0, and then it executes one step of that`

`program. Then, unlike a universal interpreter or machine, instead of`

`computing P_0 applied on 0, it generates the second program. Then it`

`comes back on the first program, and generates a second step of it,`

`then it generates a step of the second program, and then it generates`

`the third program, and so forth, dovetailing also on the inputs. In`

`that way, it will generates all programs step execution on all inputs.`

`But *you* cannot be aware of the execution steps of the UD. No`

`conscious creature generated by the UD can be aware of the UD-time.`

`Now each program P_0, P_1, P_2, P_3, on any input, generates its own`

`time, by its own steps of execution. But some P_i are themselves`

`dovetailers and can generate still other time. All those times are`

`entirely third person describable.`

`But the first person time, like the physical time (which is first`

`person plural, or should be, assuming comp, and no error in the`

`reasoning, ...) cannot be related to any of those particular P_i`

`times. The reason is that your "next 1-OM" is given by a measure on`

`all the P_i computations going through your current 3-OM (your brain`

`state, which you is digital, by the DM assumption). That is what shows`

`the UD Argument.`

`But there are infinitely many such 3-OM. For example, the UD will`

`generate all the quantum histories described by the quantum state of a`

`gas nebula, or of our galaxy, dovetailing on the complex number`

`initial segments, leading already, from the 1-view, to a continuum of`

`Kim Jones and Bruno Marchal, etc.). Our consciousness is not attached`

`to any particular implementation of a computation, but to all of them.`

`This follows from UDA-1-4 mainly.`

In fact, "I" don't experience 'observer moments' at all.

`You are right. 3-OM is just the computational state. But the 1-OMs`

`are given by the distribution of all the upper level equivalent 3-OMs`

`computations, and the distribution is given by ALL the 3-OMs and their`

`computations, including the infinitely and continuously infinite 3-OM`

`of the sub level of substitution. You are in a (comp) superposition`

`state of all what you ignore (or are isolated from) below your level`

`of substitution.`

`And you are right. One 1-OM has no successors 1-OM. It is more like a`

`point on a surface or on a line. Each 1-OM has a neighborhood of a`

`continuous set of 1-OMs. The natural third person topology can be`

`given by a relation of distance defined by the length of the similar`

`part of the computations involved, but the topology is "derived" by`

`the logic of Bp & p (the link between the computation and the truth,`

`defining the knower).`

`This makes the subjective time "very real", not just a construction of`

`my mind, but also a construction of the universal mind, or the UD, or`

`that tiny part of arithmetical truth. We participate both if I can say.`

I experience a 'river of time' or a paved walkway with a continuousborder over which I seem to glide.

`Well said. And in computer land, like in the country, rivers`

`bifurcate, fuse, and all go to the sea.`

The 3rd person version is where I get to watch 'you' do variousdiscrete things (moving your limbs) that I will perhaps agree leadto a similar experience of continuity for you. Actually, I onlynotice 'you' when you tread on each paver. You disappear as you movebetween them. This is because when I 'notice you' - the duration ofmy noticing you (my focussed, conscious attention) forms theduration of the 3-OM.

`Betting on some high level of substitution, like the`

`'neurophilosopher' that is correct, I think. But you can never see`

`completely my body, given that once you look at the detail, you will`

`cross our (hopefully common) substitution level, making what`

`constitute myself relatively to you rather cloudy. Indeed you will see`

`the trace of the parallel computations on which the UD dovetails.`

1-OM = analog experience of time

`Yes. Typically an indexical (like "me", "I", now, here, there, etc.).`

`And as an experience it is not a point, but an interval, or an open`

`set in a topological space. This is coherent with the different kind`

`of semantics needed for each person points of view (S4Grz1, X1*).`

3-OM = digital experience of time

`Not so much an experience than the use of the natural numbers`

`successor order for describing digital or arithmetical relation`

`between computational (or not) states. The teacher says that the`

`lesson will finish in 15 minutes (digital), but if the lesson is`

`boring (subjective experience) that can seem very long and continuous`

`(subjective experience).`

Ca va un peu? Tu me dira...

Ouais c'est trĂ¨s bien :) Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.