Hi Richard!

`Wonderful! Another pair of eyes looking at Pratt's work. This is`

`progress! There are a couple open problems, such as how to model large`

`networks of bisimulations but from my toy model study I think I have a`

`solution to that one. The only technical problems are the formulation of`

`a tensor product rule for arbitrary Monads (whose bodies/minds are the`

`logical algebra and topological space "couples" that Pratt models using`

`Chu_k spaces) and the "forgetful" version of residuation. I have some`

`ideas on those too...`

`By the way, the entire question of particles/strings/etc. is`

`reduced to a phenomenology/epistemology question that can be addressed`

`using computational simulation modeling and considerations of`

`observational bases. We only need to recover/derive the data not the`

`"stuff". The mereology of monads would follow the entanglement scheme of`

`QM (for Chu_k ; k = complex number field) and allow us to use the`

`pseudo-telepathy idea from quantum game theory to model bisimulation`

`networks in a different basis. What I like about this the most is that`

`it offers a completely new paradigm for investigations into physics and`

`philosophy. See http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ph94.pdf for even more`

`discussions.`

On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say.1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on amental state x of the mind X, written a=|x.2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a,written x |= a.3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to thepossible worlds of a Kripke structure,and events to propositions that may or may not hold in diﬀerent worldsof that structure.4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its directionis that of time.5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time./ "Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logicas primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, // but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time andlogic ﬂow in opposite directions."/6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K ofvalues that events can impress on states.7.Our ﬁrst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial oneof using diﬀerent variables to range over these sets: A, B overbodies, X, Y over minds.8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of setstransform into each other.9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselvesby realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: setstall and thin, antisets short and wide.10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of theendpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1,making each point the quantity p − q.11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basicconnections and the two associated properties, with mind and body inplace of −1 and 1 respectively.12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and "sets arephysical".13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physicalfunctions 'identify and adjoin'.14. "For K the set (not ﬁeld) of complex numbers, right and leftresiduation are naturally taken to be the respective products ...corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer productin a Hilbert space"That "The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric"suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to analgebra.This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the linehaving the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1Now this is interesting: "Points have necessary existence, all beingpresent simultaneously in the physical object A.15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripkestructure [Gup93]:only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives.Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who doesthe choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness?16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A ⊗ B, their tensorproduct.17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which canbe understood as the logic of four key structural properties:it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makesit also cocomplete and coconcrete).The following implies some sort of entanglement in order tointerrogate all entities."When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondarycausalinteraction we ﬁnd that two events, or two states, communicate witheach otherby interrogating all entities of the opposite type."It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to thehuman mind by way of entangled BECs.The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purelya BEC.So the physical brain must contain a BEC, I imagine, for this theoryto work.But I am more interested in the connection of the mind to physicalparticles/strings.Particles can become entangled, but they are not BECs.Elsewhere I have proposed that every physical particle is connected toa (or many) monads.It appears that Pratt theory may work for a particle connected to many*or all* monads.Thanks again, Richard

-- Onward! Stephen "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." ~ Francis Bacon -- 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.