Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 13:35, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:32 PM Quentin Anciaux
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 09:19, Bruce Kellett
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a
écrit :
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:11 PM Quentin Anciaux
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 07:02, 'Brent Meeker' via
Everything List <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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*.
That does not address the point that I made -- there are more
moments between 40 and 90 than between 1 and 20, so you spend
more time in your mature years. Pick a time at random, you
are likely to be mature. Your points about ordering and
succession are completely irrelevant to the main point being
made.
Again *we don't pick our life moment at random*... I'm living
*every day, every second* of my life, there is no wonder to live
your life, if your theory is that every human should be between
40 and 90, because they have more moments between 40 and 90 than
between 1 and 20, it's absurd... and false.
