Dear Brent, -----Original Message----- From: meekerdb Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 1:40 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments

## Advertising

> On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > [SPK] > > I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility > > that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers > > your example, I think... > > > > I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy > > of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a > > separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So > > how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed > > that term) of one OM get related to that of another? > > > > Onward! > > > > Stephen > > > I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as > computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the > digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in > Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences). > > The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and > discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some > internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable > theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small > amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily > include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also > difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted > for in this theory. > > Brent -- It could be that Stathis' theory is using the notion of atomicity that is used in logics relating to formulas. It relates to the original Greek notion of an atom as "indivisible". Atomic logics can be considered as such that to add or subtract some part of them (prepositions and/or relations) would make them collapse. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_formula and in a wider context here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic . I would like to see more of Stathis’ ideas. I am sanguine toward this idea as it would apply to OMs in the sense of inducing the stratifications that we see in terms of Bruno’s “substitution level” for a wider notion of machines – not just humans - and Russell’s idea that an OM has a minimum quantity of chance involved, like a result of constant of action of sorts. The Yes Doctor thesis of digital substitution would apply to planetary and even galactic sized sentient entities if it applies to amoeba and humans! (I only worry that Bruno is too easily dismissing the implications of quantum entanglement and the canonical conjugacy of observables.) Complete atomic Boolean algebras are part of these explorations. For instance see: http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/RepresentingACompleteAtomicBooleanAlgebraByPowerSet.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebras_canonically_defined . I am interested in more general logics (where the truth values can range over the complex numbers instead of just those that have binary ({0,1} valuations) and their topological Stone duals and considerations of if and how they can be considered as dynamic (instead of just static a priori given structures). Thus my questions about how OMs are sequenced. It is part of the idea that I am exploring using the Stone duality (similar to line discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_sets ) to rehabilitate Cartesian dualism as first proposed by Vaughan Pratt since it has become obvious to me that monist ontologies have severe problems. It could be that considerations of OMs as defined in terms of equivalence classes of computational sequences or as atomic formulas or algebras are consistent with each other, just different semantical methods of addressing the same idea. We run into difficulties in these discussion because we can easily mix metaphors when translating between technical discussions of the formal mathematics and our personal folk theologies about our experiences and interpretations of the mathematics. I am often guilty of this metaphor mixing and appreciate error correction when needed. ;-) Onward! Stephen -- 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.