Dear Bruno,

I am interested in more of your thinking on several ideas that you mention in this post.


1) The 8 hypostases as N-OM; N = 1 - 8

2) Is this "physical instantiation of a 3-OM is an infinite mathematical object" phrasing equivalent to saying that the "physical" instantiation of a 3-OM a "model" (in Model theory terms) of an infinite mathematical object. What is the nature of this object.

3) About the the notion that OM ""overlap" is what is managed by the modalities distinguishing the points of views"? Please elaborate on this.

Onward!

Stephen


-----Original Message----- From: Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:58 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments


On 18 May 2011, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/17/2011 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip

It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can 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.

[Brent]
You misunderstand. I'm objecting to the idea that a "thought" = "a single state of a digital computation". It seems to me that "observer moment", OM, is used equivocally to refer to both as though they were the same thing.
[Bruno]
Yes, I agree. That is a very usual confusion. That is why I suggest
people to always distinguish clearly the 3-OMs (computational states
belonging to 3-describable computations) and the 1-OMs (which are
typically NOT describable, except by reference to a notion of truth,
which is itself not describable). Eventually the 3-OMs are handled by
the self-reference logic G (and G*), and the 1-OMs are described by
the self-reference logic S4Grz1 and X1*. It is the difference between
Bp, Bp & p, and Bp & Dt & p. The additions of "& p", " Dt" and "Dt &
p" change the logical and topological structures bearing on the OMs.
I use the notion of OM because people here use that vocabulary, but it
is a bit misleading. Given that there is 8 hypostases, we should
distinguish the 1-OM, 2-OM, 3-OM, ... 8-OM, and even more due to the
others possible arithmetical nuances entailed by the incompleteness
phenomenon.

If my brain or some part thereof were replaced by digital computer I think its states would be a level far below those of my thoughts (1_OM?) - just as the computational state of my neurons is below the level of my consciousness.

You are right. And this is why physics is eventually transformed into
a statistics on (relative) computations. Whatever is below my
substitution level is multiplied into infinities, because no machine
can singularize itself on "one" computation. "We" are spread across
the whole universal dovetailing, or on the whole sigma_1 arithmetical
truth.

Those states (are those what you are calling 3-OM?) would contain far more information than that contained in the conscious part.

Indeed, a "real" physical instantiation of a 3-OM is an infinite
mathematical object (if we are machine).

They would have a much shorter duration than a thought and so a thought would not be atomic, but would have parts that could overlap and hence provide the experience of time.

I agree. The "overlap" is what is managed by the modalities
distinguishing the points of views.

Bruno



--
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.

Reply via email to