On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:57, Philip Thrift <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Jul 2019, at 19:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> > You may be able to access your subjective time, but does it provide a
>> measure...and if so what is it?
>>
>>
>
>
>> We get three candidates for the logic of the measure one, given by the
>> logic of the intensional variant of G ([]p):
>>
>> []p & p
>> []p & <>t
>> []p & <>t & p
>>
>> With “[]” = Gödel’s beweisbar, and p is any sigma_1 arithmetical
>> sentences (it models the Universal dovetailing).
>>
>> If that logic verifies some technical condition (described by Von Neuman
>> in some papers), the logic should provides the entire probability calculus,
>> as it has to do if Mechanism is correct.
>>
>> G and G* splits both []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p. So we get 5 logics, but
>> normally, only the starred logic should provides the measure, because it
>> depends on the true structure made by the 1p experiences, and not the
>> experienced experiences. Our future depends non locally of all our existing
>> “preparation” or “reconstitution” that exists in the (sigma_1) arithmetic
>> (the universal dovetailer).
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>
> If that above is a correct *experientiality logic*, then what would be a
> 'machine' -- defined in terms of physics (or chemistry or biology) -- to
> execute it?
>
> We know one 'machine' exists: our brain. But what machine is that?
>
>
>
>
> That’s a very good question, but not an easy one, especially if you are
> not familiar with the “universal dovetailer argument” and our
> self-multiplication in arithmetic.
>
> The brain exist phenomenologically, and it is not a machine, even if it is
> something which supports computation. In fact it is the same for a computer.
>
> You could say that a brain or a computer is a digital machine (supporting
> our computation), but that it is itself supported by an infinity of
> computations. Intuitively (accepting classical quantum physics momentarily)
> a piece of matter is a map of all the realities you will access if you
> attempt to figure out some aspect of those sub-level computations. You can
> imagine that there is one computation for each possible position (and
> momentum) of each electron in that piece of matter, and the electron itself
> is a complicated invariant of some possible field. But the multiplication
> can be triggered by the observation, by some alien, even far away, of its
> own piece of matter. Such a multiplication is contaminated by the alien to
> you, at the speed of light (or below) assuming again the physics of today
> (which we seem to recover until now).
>
> It is certainly hard to imagine: a brain our a physical computer is made
> up of the histories we can share, and which are supported by the infinitely
> many computations (which are run in Arithmetic) with more details than we
> need to have our computational state.
> An image would be that a piece of matter is made of those computations,
> but that is still a misleading metaphor, as matter is not something made of
> anything, but is more like a qualia (a first person notion), which we can
> share among locally independent universal machine.
>
> I can argue, that both intuitively (with some many-world account of QM)
> and formally (using the self-reference logics and the quantum logical
> formalism) that nature confirms this (with some degree), but that will not
> help, QM itself does not admit simple interpretation, and there is no
> unanimity of how to interpret it. Mechanism makes this both more simple
> (the many computations are easy to study), and more complex, because the
> internal views are based on incompleteness which is rather
> counter-intuitive too.
>
> It is exactly what I am searching: what is matter when we understand that
> the physical reality is more like an infinity of computer simulation
> interfering statistically? The math, a bit like with the current physical
> theories, can only give epistemic observable and predictions rules, and
> that is how we can test mechanism experimentally. Matter conceived as
> something made of tiny particles is a concept that we need to abandon: they
> are abstract feature introduce by ourself when we look at things, but with
> a very general notion of ourself (all universal machines in arithmetic).
> The math suggest that the “bottom” of the physical reality is a highly
> symmetrical structure which is highly not symmetrical from the perspective
> of the average universal number in arithmetic.
>
> I hope this helps. I will make a glossary which should add more help, soon
> or a bit later,
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
The Kantian perspective is
logic-of-X ≠ X-in-itself
-- which is noumena, or matter.
All our conceptions of the world are prisoners of our logic (languages).
@philipthrift
--
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/0b442a65-485f-41af-a61e-4bc2e19c69a7%40googlegroups.com.
