On 1/5/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: 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?This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations.

`Every computation is a person? What does it mean "a computation"?`

`...one of the threads of the UD? or some state of the UD?`

To have a probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p & <>t. (Because with the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the “<>t” to avoid the cul-de-sac (cf the typical default hypothesis in probability theory). The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are restricted by being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian machine “you are”.

`Consistent in what sense? Just not proving a contradiction...how does`

`thread of the UD prove a contradiction? or does it mean consistent in`

`the sense of representing a quasi-classical world in which the`

`electron's spin measures either UP of DOWN but not both?`

There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only).

`So will it be apparently consistent? What would it mean for it to be`

`inconsistent? Logic is timeless so if it proves X and then it proves`

`not-X that is a contradiction. But FP experience is not timeless, so X`

`can be true now and not-X true later and there is no contradiction.`

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”.I am not sure to understand your problem here. All mind state are actual from the first person point of view.

`"Mind state" = "a conscious thought"? OK, but then how does that relate`

`to the computations of a UD?`

The definition of “[]p” is already an indexical,

`"Indexical" literally means you can point to it. I don't understand how`

`you are using the word.`

and you can add axioms like “I am in Helsinki” or “I am in Washington”, which change the actual state/machine (but G and G* still applies to them). The phenomenologies are given by the hypostases. The physical phenomenologies is given by the sigma_1 sentences structured by the mode of each “material” hypostases (the one given by the X above).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.At the meta level only. We can define, like Theaetetus, knowledge (which is 1p) by “[]p & p”, but only because we limit ourself, non constructively, to sound machine. The machine itself cannot do that: “[]p & p” cannot be define in the language of the machine, for reason similar as the fact that they cannot define truth. This explains why the 1p “I” has to look non definable by each concerned entity about itself,

`Fine, I understand that. But you propose that it is definable in terms`

`of the computations of the UD and that's the definition I seek.`

and this is what lead to retrieved consciousness associated indexically, and non constructively, to the machine, if you are OK to define consciousness by (immediate, with <>t) knowable, indubitable, but also non rationally justifiable (provable) and non definable.

`Those are all 1p attributes of propositions. The question is how they`

`are instantiated in the UD computations.`

Consciousness is just the name we give to that personal feeling. You see that consciousness has no 3p definition from the machine’s point of view. But “we”, who knows that the machine is sound (because we limit ourself to such machine) can know and prove this. The machine can do the same about any machine supposed to be correct.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.Which chasm? Keep in mind that (at the meta-level) we assume computationalism. Whatever experience you live in the duplication experience in some “world” (assuming that exist), there will be computations in arithmetic mimicking those histories, and the 1p indeterminacy is on those computations. Again, I was assuming some “world” with Washington and Moscow, but that is neutral on the primary character that such world would have with the Materialist position, which is NOT assume.

`You say it is not assumed. But you use it as though it is assumed and`

`you didn't derive it.`

That is already done at the step 1 of the UDA. There is a chasm only if you assume the ontological of world, but that is not in need to be assumed. Replace such world by any computation mimicking the world enough so that the 1p view cannot distinguish such world and the computation.

`Yes, I made that same point a long time ago, that if the UD is going to`

`produce conscious thoughts it must produce a "world" in which those are`

`thoughts about something.`

Take, in case you feel the substitution level is very low (fine grained) the Heisenberg Matrix of our cluster of galaxies at the level of quarks with 10^(100^1000) decimals. It is executed somewhere in the sigma_1 arithmetical reality (by the comp assumption).

`It is not good enough to just say it must be in there somewhere`

`"assuming comp", because we are testing comp by seeing whether it`

`describes experience. So it is evasive to say that in the infinitude of`

`arithmetic and UD computations, a descriptions of your experience, and`

`any possible experience, in in there.`

Brent -- 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.