On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:11 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 07:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> a écrit : > >> On 6/30/2019 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 22:31, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/28/2019 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> Quentin is right on this, we cannot sample a random “observer moment” >> (cf ASSA, Absolute Self-Sampling Assumption) without taking the structure >> of that set into account. With Mechanism, we can use only a Relative SSA, >> both intuitively and formally, by incompleteness which distinguish between >> provable(p) and “provable(p) & consistent”. >> >> The structure Quentin cited is ordering. >> > Good insight, but very natural for being supported by computations, >> which can be typically seen as growing trees. It is the state of knowledge >> of some subject, and this fit well with its S4Grz logic, which provides an >> Intuionist logic for the subject, often having semantics in term of order, >> or partial order. >> > >> > >> > >> >> But how does that force RSSA in my example of taking a journey, which >> is also ordered? >> > It is the whole bayesian idea which does not make sense. I state of >> consciousness cannot be sampled on all states, the probabilities are >> related to histories/computations, with a relative measure conditioned by >> some mental state (of a Löbian machine in arithmetic to do the math). >> > >> > Nothing is obvious here. That is why I “interview” the (Löbian) >> universal machine, like PA and ZF. Both agrees, the traditional nuance >> brought by the neoplatonic on truth are differentiated due to >> incompleteness, and the probabilities are on the sigma_1 true propositions >> structured by the provability logics and the intensional variants given by >> those definitions. >> > >> > Also, how do you know that we are we not already very old? Perhaps even >> more so if the Big-bang admits a long preceding history, like branes >> wandering before colliding … (not that I believe in Brane or string except >> in arithmetic and Number theory). But that is irrelevant, because the >> self-sample is not on all the moments, but more on the consistent >> histories, structure by the laws of computer science/arithmetic, … >> >> So what? If QI is true then there are infinitely long consistent >> histories. Are you saying that the measure is just the number of >> consistent histories, independent of their length?...a measure likely to >> be dominated by fetuses. >> > > The problem with your argument is it rely on the "fact" that we should > only *ever* really live one moment and to expect to be in that moment > (either old or fetuses or whatever doesn't matter)... But life is not a > single moment, it is a succession of ordered moments... so your argument is > absurd. You don't come into existence into a random "moment". > But you spend more 'time' living between the ages of 40 and 90 than you do between the ages of 1 and 20! Ordering is irrelevant to the number of moments....and the measure of your existence. Bruce -- 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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSpv5U-z7%3DqyKUk40JG2n6bhas%3DeEowirjv34vnWYabTQ%40mail.gmail.com.
