Thanks, I'll give it another shot. All the best,   marty a.



________________________________
From: Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
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 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.

-- 
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