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 <[email protected]>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 > <[email protected]>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 [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.
