On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of
the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I
realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. Once
you understand that there are infinitely many computations going through you
actual state,
What does it mean "your actual state"? How is it defined within the UD?
It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise way through the Gödel
number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p
being limited to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences.
I don't think I understand that. You're saying that within all the UD
computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and
their interactions with some world they are embedded in?
Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block picture
(which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is purely phenomenological.
?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.
I understand computations, like Turing machines, have states. But I
don't understand these "actual states".
We cannot define it in any 3p terms. It is pure 1p, but with mechanism,
But the idea is to explain 1p experience in 3p terms, i.e. in terms of
computations.
its (meta) logic is captured by the (3p describable if the machine assumes
Mechanism) material mode.
We know that intuitively: the actual state of the guy in Moscow is “I am in
Moscow”, and the actual state of the guy in Washington is “I am in Washington”.
Both are correct, but as everyone know (except John apparently), both the W and
M guys feel their actual state as being very different of the mental state of
their counterpart.
The trouble with that explanation is that you have jumped from
description in terms of a UD, to a description in terms of a world with
Washington and Moscow and a duplicating machine. Leaving a chasm of
explanation between the two.
Brent
All indexicals are treated directly or indirectly with Kleene’s second
recursion theorem. Like G and G* are shown arithmetically complete by using
that theorem, or its equivalent formal version (Gödel diagonal lemma).
Bruno
Brent
you can understand that we have to see the trace of those computations when
looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our substitution level. Then
the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
