On 2/17/2012 2:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Feb 2012, at 13:51, Stephen P. King wrote:On 2/17/2012 4:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 16 Feb 2012, at 16:57, Stephen P. King wrote:On 2/16/2012 4:49 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:On 15 Feb 2012, at 08:07, Stephen P. King wrote:By the way, Darwin's theory revolves around the notion ofevolution, that "simpler objects" can evolve and change. Numbers,by definition, cannot change and thus cannot implement any formof change or evolution.So you assume a primitive time?No, there cannot be a primitive time because that would requirea primitive measure and the same reasons that we cannot haveprimitive physical worlds nor primitive abstract entities wouldhold. We need to discuss how measures come to occur.First person indeterminacy. It is the classical boolean Gaussianmeasure on the set of relative computations, as seen by the machines(the "as seen" is made technically precise in AUDA).Dear Bruno,I had a tiny epiphany this morning as I read your remarks and Ithink that it is best that I surrender to you on my complaint thatyour result goes to far and is really a form of ideal monism and turnto discussions of the ideas of measures and interactions. My mainmotivation is to see how far Prof. Kitada and Pratt's ideas arecompatible with yours.Could you elaborate a bit on Gaussian measures. They areunfamiliar to me.Once you accept P = 1/2 for the first person indeterminacy on a domainwith two (and only two) relative reconstitutions, you can verify thatthe 2^n persons obtained after an iterated WM self-duplication candiscover that they can be partitioned by the numbers of having gone inW (resp. M), and that those numbers are given by the binomialcoefficients. The Gaussian distribution is obtained in the limit, bythe law of big numbers. Surely you know this.In front of the UD, that Gaussian distribution becomes "quantum like"due to the constraints of self-reference, and of the appurtenance ofthe computational states to computations. Intuitively we can guessthat the "winning" computations will exploit the random oracle givenby the self-multiplication so that a notion of normal histories candevelop.But comp+classical-theory of knowledge does not permit the use of suchintuition, we have to retrieve this form the self-reference logic, sothat we can distinguish the communicable and non communicable parts.The logic of measure one have been already retrieved, if we agree onthe definition used in AUDA.Of course we can still speculate on what such a measure can look like.

Dear Bruno,

`I will study more on the Gaussian measure (although it seems that`

`you are using the "Gaussian distribution idea...) no problem. What I`

`would like to know is how we go from a very large to infinite collection`

`of distributive algebras to non-distributive orthocomplete lattices, for`

`that is what you are implying. I can see ambiguously how this works`

`given 1p indeterminacy, but it would be nice to have a local`

`approximation of this mechanism.`

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.