Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 09:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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! > And so what ? you have to have been 20 to be then between 40 and 90... your moments are successive *and not picked up at random*. > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLSpv5U-z7%3DqyKUk40JG2n6bhas%3DeEowirjv34vnWYabTQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- 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/CAMW2kApSmztiGOezx_0c58dyxn7v%3D6rmNVEHg7ixKj169hOoOQ%40mail.gmail.com.
