Thanks, I'll give it another shot. All the best, marty a.
________________________________ From: Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, February 25, 2012 5:05:35 AM Subject: Re: The free will function Hi Marty, On 25 Feb 2012, at 01:51, marty684 wrote: >> >>Why should probability depend on us; on what we 'know or cannot know' ? On >>what >>is 'observable' to us? It seems to me that you are defining probability by >>that >>which is relative to our 'actual states'. Why can't we >>inhabit a seeminglyprobablistic part of an infinite, determined universe ? But that is the case. If you define the reality by a tiny part of arithmetic (equivalent with the UD), you have a deterministic structure, which from our points of view will look indeterministic. The probability are relative to us, because we are the one doing the experience. Suppose you decide to throw a coin. To predict what will happen to you you have to look at all the computation accessing the computational state you have when throwing the coin, and infer what will happen from a measure on the continuations. I'm delighted to learn that I understood you after all. Thanks for this further clarification. You are welcome. > > > > Read UDA, and ask question for each step, in case of >problem, so we might single out the precise point where you don't succeed to >grasp why comp put probabilities, or credibilities, uncertainties, in front >of >everything. UDA1-7 is enough to get this. UDA-8 is needed only for the more >subtle immateriality point implied by computationalism. > >> >> >> >>My attempts to read UDA were never successful. Sorry. >> >>May be you have a problem with my english. Please, begin by the step one, on >>page 4 of sane04, read it, and tell me precisely what you don't understand in >>the step 1. I might need to re-explain comp to you, or you can glance its >>definition on page 2. When you will grasp step 1, we will be able to go to the 2th step, and so one. Bruno I don't have a problem with your english. I have a problem with the logical complexity of your work. It is not simple, but not *that* difficult either (I mean UDA, AUDA needs a background in logic which is not so well taught). Also I no longer remember where to find the text you're referring to. Warmest wishes, marty You can find the paper, and the unique slide to easily remember the different steps here: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Best, 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
