Hi Richard,

Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR.

On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:

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.

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

    On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
    Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.
    I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time
    eliminates the multiverse.

    On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King
    <stephe...@charter.net <mailto: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

        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.



"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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to