On 16 May 2011, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote:

## 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 possibilitythat the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This coversyour example, I think...I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogyof putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal toa separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs.So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I amallowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another?Onward! StephenI think they must be strung together by overlapping, since ascomputations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of thedigital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and inBruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences).

`It is just that if you believe that your consciousness (first person`

`experience) is manifested through a digitalisable machine, you have to`

`distinguish the 1-OMs from the 3-OMs.`

Intuitively (cf UDA) and computer science theoretically (cf AUDA).

The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomicand discrete.

`I think Stathis and me share the same theory (a brain can be`

`substituted by a (material) digital mechanism). The OMs Stathis is`

`referring to are the 3-OMs. By digitalness they can be considered as`

`atomic and discrete. If we start from addition and multiplication (of`

`non negative integers) as initial universal base, the 3-OMs are`

`numbers. Now, and here perhaps Stathis might disagree, a sequence of`

`numbers is only a computation when it is defined relatively to a`

`universal number, to begin by one self.`

`The 1-OM arises from the first person indeterminacy. Our actual`

`consciousness depends on the topology and relative measure on all`

`"equivalent states" reached by all (universal) numbers.`

`This is a non trivial structure whose mathematics can be derived from`

`the self-reference logics + the classical theory of knowledge.`

`As I try to explain, this gives a conceptual explanation of quanta and`

`qualia, and, accepting also the classical theory of knowledge`

`(Timaeus, Theaetetus) a mathematical theory of quanta and qualia.`

In that case they would have to be strung together by some internalreference, one to another.

`Stathis has the correct picture, I think. I mean "correct" relatively`

`to the mechanist assumption. The internal reference is given by the`

`logic of the self-reference. But pure internal reference makes no`

`sense, we need both globally and locally refer to "other" universal`

`number (other that oneself) to make sense of the notion of`

`computation. But it is the self which "create" the past and the`

`continuation by maintaining enough self-consistency. Stathis might`

`just study a bit more the math of computer science, perhaps.`

I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make thematomic, they must have only small amounts of information -

`Computational states (3-OM) are as atomic as natural numbers. Some`

`contains HUGE amount of information.`

when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory ofor reference to previous thoughts.

`That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind`

`the consciousness of the "blanche machine", the consciousness of the`

`virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness.`

`Brains only change their probability of manifestation relatively to`

`probable relative universal numbers. Consciousness is a 'natural'`

`property of universal numbers relatively to probable others universal`

`numbers. Those relations define an information differentiating flux in`

`arithmetical truth.`

It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of timecan be accounted for in this theory.

`If you accept mechanism, many times emerges. Many 1-times (feeling of`

`duration), and 3-times (clock). Their logic is provably given by the`

`variant of self-reference, which each structured the numbers in`

`different way. Actually 1-times is given by S4Grz1 and X1*, and 3-`

`times is given by Z1*, or slight variant if you nuance the theory of`

`knowledge (this is the toy theology of the ideally correct Löbian`

`number).`

`If you reject mechanism, tell me what is your theory of mind and your`

`theory of matter.`

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.