# Re: On Pre-existing Fields

```
On 17 Feb 2012, at 22:26, Stephen P. King wrote:```
```
```
```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 of evolution, that "simpler objects" can evolve and change. Numbers, by definition, cannot change and thus cannot implement any form of change or evolution.
```
So you assume a primitive time?
```
```

```
No, there cannot be a primitive time because that would require a primitive measure and the same reasons that we cannot have primitive physical worlds nor primitive abstract entities would hold. We need to discuss how measures come to occur.
```
```
First person indeterminacy. It is the classical boolean Gaussian measure 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 I think that it is best that I surrender to you on my complaint that your result goes to far and is really a form of ideal monism and turn to discussions of the ideas of measures and interactions. My main motivation is to see how far Prof. Kitada and Pratt's ideas are compatible with yours.
```
```
Could you elaborate a bit on Gaussian measures. They are unfamiliar to me.
```
```
Once you accept P = 1/2 for the first person indeterminacy on a domain with two (and only two) relative reconstitutions, you can verify that the 2^n persons obtained after an iterated WM self- duplication can discover that they can be partitioned by the numbers of having gone in W (resp. M), and that those numbers are given by the binomial coefficients. The Gaussian distribution is obtained in the limit, by the 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 of the computational states to computations. Intuitively we can guess that the "winning" computations will exploit the random oracle given by the self-multiplication so that a notion of normal histories can develop.
```
```
But comp+classical-theory of knowledge does not permit the use of such intuition, we have to retrieve this form the self-reference logic, so that we can distinguish the communicable and non communicable parts. The logic of measure one have been already retrieved, if we agree on the 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.
```
```
Yes. It is the gaussian distribution, with Lebegues measure in the background, in the case of the ierated self-duplication.
```

```
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.
```
```
They are given by the logic of certain-observable, given by the S4grz1, X1* and Z1* hypostases. (The one corresponding to the arithmetical variants of self-reference Bp & p, Bp & Dt, Bp & Dt & p, with p Sigma_1, and B and D like in GĂ¶del 1931.
```

```
I can see ambiguously how this works given 1p indeterminacy, but it would be nice to have a local approximation of this mechanism.
```
See the part II of sane04.

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