Hi Richard Ruquist I meant that literally, not as an insult.
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 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 <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. 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 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 <[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?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 [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.
