On 31 Mar 2011, at 20:16, Stephen Paul King wrote:

## Advertising

-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 12:33 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Is QTI false? On 31 Mar 2011, at 15:35, Stephen Paul King wrote: snip*** Hi!There seems to be a conflation of the ideas of the continuity of1st person Identity (over implementations/reincarnations) andCausality. Why is this?Hi Stephen, 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 substitution level). 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. Bruno *** Hi Bruno,I understand the role of the infinities of computations and theequivalence as you are considering them finally, from reading yourpapers over and over and a brilliant discussion of the concept ofquantum superposition in Andrew Soltau's book Interactive Destiny,but am still not seeing the conflation of physical causality andlogical 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 theimplications 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 superveneon 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 waythat the dovetailing seems to work makes it so that the UD is denseon the space of computations in the same way that the Reals aredense 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 thatGoogle 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:`

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/Vandenbussche/AxiomatisationZ.html

`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-LĂ¶bian phenomenon).`

Best, 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-list@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.