I know and that's not science On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Richard Ruquist > > My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try > to follow him as closely as I can. > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> > *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> > *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 > *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory > > Roger, > > Who cares if a theory is not substantial. > What matters is if the theory correctly > or approximately models the substance. > You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. > > But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent > and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, > provides the basis for emergence. > > Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. > Can Pratt theory do that? > > > Richard > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Richard Ruquist >> Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, >> but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, >> but ideas are the contents of consciouness. >> Roger Clough, [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >> *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 >> *Subject:* Pratt theory >> >> Stephan, >> >> Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt >> http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf >> >> Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. >> But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. >> And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles >> with each other and with the monads >> >> Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. >> 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental >> state x of the mind X, written a=|x. >> 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, >> written x |= a. >> 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible >> worlds of a Kripke structure, >> and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of >> that structure. >> 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is >> that of time. >> 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. >> * "Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as >> primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, * >> * but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and >> logic ow in opposite directions."* >> 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values >> that events can impress on states. >> 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of >> using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y >> over minds. >> 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform >> into each other. >> 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by >> realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and >> thin, antisets short and wide. >> 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the >> endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, >> making each point the quantity p q. >> 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic >> connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place >> of 1 and 1 respectively. >> 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and "sets are >> physical". >> 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions >> 'identify and adjoin'. >> 14. "For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left >> residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... >> corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in >> a Hilbert space" >> >> That "The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric" >> suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an >> algebra. >> This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line >> having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 >> >> 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? >> >> 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor >> product. >> 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be >> understood as the logic of four key structural properties: >> it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it >> also cocomplete and coconcrete). >> >> >> The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate >> all entities. >> "When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary >> causal >> interaction we nd that two events, or two states, communicate with each >> other >> by interrogating all entities of the opposite type." >> >> It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to the human >> mind by way of entangled BECs. >> The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purely a >> BEC. >> So the physical brain must contain a BEC, I imagine, for this theory to >> work. >> >> But I am more interested in the connection of the mind to physical >> particles/strings. >> Particles can become entangled, but they are not BECs. >> Elsewhere I have proposed that every physical particle is connected to a >> (or many) monads. >> It appears that Pratt theory may work for a particle connected to many *or >> all* monads. >> >> Thanks again, >> Richard >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
