Don't be silly with me On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough <rclo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist > > No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. > All you have to do is open your eyes. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/23/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> > *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 > *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory > > 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 <stephe...@charter.net>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. >> >> >> 牋� 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. >> >> >> 牋� 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 >> <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> 牋� 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 >>> <stephe...@charter.net>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Richard, >>>> >>>> 牋� 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 <stephe...@charter.net >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Richard, >>>>> >>>>> 牋� 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, >>>>>> >>>>>> 牋� 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燼lternatives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. > > -- > 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.
