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:
> 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>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:
>> Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.
>> I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the
>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King
>>> 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
>>> 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.
> "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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at