On 01 Sep 2012, at 20:07, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno wrote:
Intuitively it is the limit of the number going through your actual
state in bigger and bigger finite portions of the UD*. Technically
you need the logic S4grz1, Z1* and X1* to define it properly. We
know it is exists if comp is correct, and so we an use it to test
comp. The measure one has a logic which is already well defined at
the propositional level, and it has already enough quantum feature
to define an arithmetical quantization...
A L L are product of (human?) thinking - arguments from within.
Like religious 'evidences' from alleged deeds of an alleged god (or
dreams).
Do we have anything better?
It depends on what you assume. If you assume that "we are machine",
then we can generalize your statement, by "all are product of machine
thinking from within", and apply the math of machine to learn about
them and us.
I don't (especially with some mechanism attached).
You are right. Me neither, nor any consistent machines, nor any
definable divinities, except "god", but "god" is hardly definable. So
we agree, it seems to me. That's actually a key point, as the whole
comp approach benefits from the study of machine's *limitations*, and
the ways they can use to overcome those limitations.
But my point above was just hat such approach leads to a physics, and
is made testable/refutable by comparing machine's physics with human's
physics. That is nice as it shows that we can been shown wrong in that
field, and so there are hope of progress and new discoveries.
Bruno
John M
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally
important to define time.
In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0,
s(0), s(s(0)) ... is enough, notably to named the steps of execution
of the UD (UD*), or of the programs execution we can see in UD*, or
equivalently in a tiny subset of arithmetical truth.
Are you saying time-order corresponds to the order of execution of
steps in the UD?
The first person time-order is given by the relative measure on the
computations.
?? But what is that measure.
Intuitively it is the limit of the number going through your actual
state in bigger and bigger finite portions of the UD*. Technically
you need the logic S4grz1, Z1* and X1* to define it properly. We
know it is exists if comp is correct, and so we an use it to test
comp. The measure one has a logic which is already well defined at
the propositional level, and it has already enough quantum feature
to define an arithmetical quantization.
Are you saying 1p experiences on exist in an implicit order when all
the uncountably infinite UD computations are done?
With a large sense of order, this is a consequence of the invariance
of the first person experience for the delays of reconstitution in
UD*.
But this relies on all computations, and they need a third person
time-order, and I am just saying that this one is reducible by the
natural number order.
I don't see how that can be consistent with your idea that our
sequence of conscious experiences corresponds to a "closest
continuation" of a our present state. Our present state is
supposedly visited infinitely many times by the UD.
Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the
physical time too, as the whole physics emerges from the first
person plural indeterminacy. But to define computation, we need a
thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates, we need
only the natural number canonical order: 0, 1, 2, 3, ...
That's sort of a no-person time;
OK.
a time not experienced or accessible to anyone.
?
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ...
I just access it right now.
I think of third person time as something like proper time in GR or
entropy increase - the sort of time that people can reach
intersubjective agreement about, what you measure on a clock.
OK.
I don't know which Brian was referring to, but I doubt it was the no-
person time of the UD.
I don't know.
Bruno
Brent
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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
.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
