> On 5 Jan 2019, at 22:18, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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? 

That would be a category error. We can only say that a person is associated to 
(infinitely many) computations, which are those bringing your state through 
your brain/body/history here and now.

> What does it mean "a computation"? ...one of the threads of the UD?  or some 
> state of the UD?

A thread in the UD, or anything equivalent with the sequence (on s): phi_i,s 
(j), where the s is for the sth step of the computation. The UD run all phi_i,s 
(j), for all, i, j, and s.

>> 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? 

The thread in the UD does not prove contradiction, but some threads support 
Löbian machine, which can be or not consistent. The FPI is on the thread which 
supports the consistent extension. (“Supports”, not “is”).

> 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?

No, that is for latter, and it concerns the “consistent continuations” as seen 
in the observable modes ([]p & X, with X being p, or <>p, or <>p & p), p 
sigma_1. It does not mean <>p (consistent p), but <>p v p, or, <>p v p v []f.

>> 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?

To get a contradiction at some bottom level. To prove that 0 is equal to 1.

>   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.

I military myself to sound (and thus automatically consistent) machine. Real 
machine in real life have a non monotonic layer so that they can revise their 
opinion. That is not needed to solve the mind body problem and to derive the 
physical appearance from arithmetic. To interview inconsistent machine would be 
like interviewing a sick people believing that he is Napoleon to study 
Napoleon’s life.

>>>> 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?

We lost the mind-brain identity thesis. We can (by Mechanism) associate a mind 
to a machine, but the mind itself is truly associated to all computations, 
sufficiently similar (from the 1p view) to the one we start with.
The brain-mind association is one-one, but the mind-brain(s) association is 

Imagine that your brain is duplicated, so that there are two identical brains 
int who vats. Your consciousness is (non locally) associated to the two 
(identical relatively to the substitution level) brains. But “in reality”, your 
mind is associated with all computations, and the consciousness differentiates 
on the computations which diverges above the substitution level.

>> 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.

In philosophy, “indexical” refer to words whose meaning depends on what we can 
point with an index, like the words “here”, “now”, “actual”, “me”, etc. The 
“[]p” means “I prove p”, with a third person notion of “I” (still indexical, 
like “my body”. The 1p I is given by the variants []p & p, []p & <>p, []p & <>p 
& p. Normally []p & <>p is the first person plural (but there some difficulties 
here: and it could be that []p & <>p & p is the more correct first person 
plural view. Quanta seems to be pure qualia, somehow, which is confirmed by QM, 
by the “superposition contagion” (which “duplicates” collection of machines).

>> 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.

The computation in the UD (or in RA) can support your consciousness (we 
*assume* digital mechanism). But your consciousness is supported (out of time 
and space) by all computations (the first person is not aware of the delay of 
“reconstitution” in the UD deployment).

That association is provably not constructive. There is no algorithm to single 
out the computations which supports you in the UD deployment. That is why 
physics is expected to be not completely computable, but the distribution of 
probability can still, and should be, computably approximable. 

>> 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.

The 1p are instanced by the “[]p & p”, in all computations which run “[]”. 
(“[]” is the arithmetical Gödel’s provability predicate, []p is a particular 
sigma_1 sentence (even with p not sigma_1, but for the physics, we have to 
restrict the arithmetical interpretation of G on the sigma_1 p. We use G1 = G + 
“p->[]p”. That is enough (thanks to a result by Albert Visser).

>> 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.

I don’t. In UDA I assume computers, doctors, and certainly a physical reality, 
of course, but not a primary one. Then in AUDA I assume no more than RA or Kxy 
= x + Sxyz = xz(yz). When I assume “doctors”, it is neutral if they are product 
of computations, or not, at the beginning stage of the reasoning, then all this 
is discharged all along the reasoning, and AUDA makes clear we do not assume 
more than RA or the combinators, or equivalent. Intuitively, that happens 
already at the step 7 and 8. At step seven, you should already understand that 
presupposing primary doctors, primary computers, … do not work, as you need to 
reintroduce a strong identity thesis which is incoherent with the fact that all 
computations are realised in arithmetic. How could a primary being do the 
selection without violating Mechanism?

>> 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.

Yes, but those “worlds” are only given by a statistics on all the other 
sufficiently similar computation. The AUDA mathematical part get a proximity 
relations on the sigma_1 sentences, and it obeys a quantum logic, giving hope 
we get something like the Born rule, and a corresponding “Gleason theorem” 
which would justify it. 
If that is proved impossible, then we have refute Mechanism.

>> 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. 

We can only test comp (in the 3p sharable way, or in the 1p plural way) by 
comparing the physics in the head of the machine with what we see. Without the 
quantum data, I would (and have, a long time ago) conclude that Mechanism is 
false or newly plausible.

> 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.

It is just a fact that we have to take into account. There is no evasion, we 
make this precise by defining “observable with measure 1” by []p & <>p (& p),  
and do the math. We get a modal logic close to B, which is related to quantum 
logic (by a result due to Goldblatt 1978).


> 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.

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.

Reply via email to