Hi Richard Ruquist 

I meant that literally, not as an insult.


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 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-23, 13:14:30
Subject: Re: Re: Pratt theory


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 
Receiver: everything-list 
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.

? 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 <stephe...@charter.net> 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 <stephe...@charter.net> 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 <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?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.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to