Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: > 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: > > 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.
