Dear Bruno,

`I am interested in more of your thinking on several ideas that you`

`mention in this post.`

## Advertising

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 beaccounted for in this theory.If you accept mechanism, many times emerges. Many 1-times (feeling ofduration), and 3-times (clock). Their logic is provably given by thevariant of self-reference, which each structured the numbers indifferent way. Actually 1-times is given by S4Grz1 and X1*, and 3- timesis given by Z1*, or slight variant if you nuance the theory of knowledge(this is the toy theology of the ideally correct LĂ¶bian number).If you reject mechanism, tell me what is your theory of mind and yourtheory of matter.[Brent]You misunderstand. I'm objecting to the idea that a "thought" = "asingle state of a digital computation". It seems to me that "observermoment", OM, is used equivocally to refer to both as though they were thesame 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 Ithink its states would be a level far below those of my thoughts(1_OM?) - just as the computational state of my neurons is below thelevel 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 farmore 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 thoughtwould not be atomic, but would have parts that could overlap and henceprovide 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.