Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Stephan, > > But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. > I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. > > > Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the "cosmic consciousness" > idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. > > A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing > but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. > > > I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined > in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition > of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), > which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The > trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and > back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. > > > Gotta go now. Catch you later. > Richard > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> >> Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a >> 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which >> superposes different 1p) looks... >> >> >> >> On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Stephan, >> >> Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? >> I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition. >> Richard >> >> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not >>> inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. >>> I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively >>> real. >>> >>> >>> On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> <[email protected]>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 <[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.
