On 31 Mar 2011, at 20:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Is QTI false?
On 31 Mar 2011, at 15:35, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There seems to be a conflation of the ideas of the continuity of
1st person Identity (over implementations/reincarnations) and
Causality. Why is this?
It is normal. Usually people take the comp hyp by assuming that
consciousness is related to a physical, or just a single implemented
computation, without taking into consideration the infinities of
computations leading to the same or equivalent states, as needed from
the first person perspective (plural or not). In fine the physical
computation is defined by the infinity of computations (executed by
the UD, or in arithmetic) leading to the equivalent state, and
physical causality emerges from all of them, leading to some
multiverse structure observable once we look at ourself below our comp
If this does not help, try to make your question more specific. It is
a difficult subject.
You like math, I think. I can define for you the 'arithmetical
physical causality': event A causes event B means that
BD(BD A -> BD B) is arithmetically true, with B and D being the new
box defined by the Bp & Dp translation in arithmetic.
Or something like that. Quantum logic (and also its arithmetical form)
has many notion of implication. The one above is the closer to the
Sazaki Hook which Hardegree used to show that orthomodularity in
quantum ortholattice is related to the notion of counterfactual. You
will find the reference in my papers.
Unfortunately orthomodularity is still an open problem in the
arithmetical 'quantum logic'. Eric Vandenbusche is currently trying to
optimize the G* theorem prover to get an answer.
I understand the role of the infinities of computations and the
equivalence as you are considering them finally, from reading your
papers over and over and a brilliant discussion of the concept of
quantum superposition in Andrew Soltau's book Interactive Destiny,
but am still not seeing the conflation of physical causality and
logical entailment. For one thing they point in opposite directions!
Let us say that this is an open question in the comp physics. I
understand Pratt motivation, but imo, he simplifies too much the mind,
and abstract himself from the comp hyp. It might be that we have a
time relation A ===> B related to the "BD" definition involving A -> B.
I still don't understand how you persist in not seeing the
implications of the Stone duality!
Explain. I don't feel like missing it.
Oh well, that is your choice,
I am problem driven. I don't make choice.
but putting that aside the continuity of 1st person should supervene
on the UD, no?
It is more correct to say that the first person defines it, and is
itself defined by number relations.
It seems to me that from the point of view of the UD
This is ambiguous. The UD is not "really" a person. It is the
effective part of the arithmetical truth. t has no points of view.
there is no before or after or this causing that.
I have already explained that the UD defines many sort of times. The
most basic one being its own steps number, but first persons 'define'
other sort of time.
To the UD everything is simultaneously given. Additionally, the way
that the dovetailing seems to work makes it so that the UD is dense
on the space of computations in the same way that the Reals are
dense in the continuum.
Not exactly, at least for most UDs. If the Mandelbrot set is a UD,
then it is a UD dense in the space of its own version of all
computations, but it is an exceptional situation.
But how can this be?
I am very interested in Eric Vandenbusche's work. I will see that
Google yields from him...
It is a young bipolar genius, of the kind "perishing (not
publishing)". His only work are notes that he wrote to me with the
solution of the first open math question in my thesis. I have put them
on my web pages. Here is the link:
The solution of the open problem is in the first three slides. It
shows also that G and Z are bisimulable. The other slides comes from
some questions I asked to him. It includes a pretty result showing
that the sentences asserting their own Sigma_1 truth are false (a sort
of anti-Löbian phenomenon).
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at