Stephan,

Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind,
but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time,
exactly what Pratt seems to be saying.
That's why I called it an axiom or assumption.
Richard

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:

>  Hi Richard,
>
>     I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a
> selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this
> is possible using an itterated tournament where the "winners" are the
> selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the
> collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from.
> What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite
> and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected
> as well.
>
>
> On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Stephan,
> Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.
> I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the
> multiverse.
> Richard
>
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King 
> <stephe...@charter.net>wrote:
>
>>  On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Now this is interesting: "Points have necessary existence, all being
>> present simultaneously in the physical object A.
>> 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure
>> [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 does
>> the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness?
>>
>>  Dear Richard,
>>
>>   No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what "Godellian
>> consciousness" is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea.
>> The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled
>> system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean
>> solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general
>> outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in  economics and has hints
>> of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game
>> theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the
>> connections (defined as bisimulations)  between monads to exploit EPR
>> effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical
>> signaling is not needed (which gets around the "no windows" rule). This
>> latter idea is still very much unbaked.
>>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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