Re: Pratt theory
On 23 Aug 2012, at 18:43, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Roger, By Existence I mean all that is necessarily possible. But necessary and possible are ultra fuzzy word. Aristotle invented the modal logic to bring a bit of light, and, despite having been mocked by logicians, modal logic appears naturally in computer science and philosophy, through precise modal logic. So hat is your modal logic? If you are using necessary in his alethic common sense, it means through in all words, and possible means true in at least one world. Then you are working implicitly in S5. So do you agree with If p is necessary then p is true If p is possible then it is necessary that p is possible if p is necessary then it is necessary that p is necessary if p is true then it is necessary that p is possible OK? usually we would write: []p for p is necessary; p for p is possible, p for p is true, etc. With S5, Kripke accessibility relation is trivial, all worlds access to each other. S5 does not appear in the arithmetical hypostases (machines points of view on arithmetic). By this definition mathematical points and theoretical domains exist. Existence is property neutral, neither defining or excluding what is or what is not. It is not a property. No where than in first order logic clearer that existence is not a property. But at the meta level, you can reprsent it by belonging to a model, and of course such existence is always theory dependent. Like the notion of nothing or everything, the notion of existence asks you to be clear (axiomatically) about your things. It is what the philosophers attempted to mean by a property bearer and could not escape the illusion of substance. Here we agree. It is Dasein but without the actuality, since this would contradict its neutrality. Both the actual and the possible exist... It is not contingent on observation or measurement or knowledge. That's 1004 talk, sorry. Bruno On 8/23/2012 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It all depends on what you mean by existence. If by existence you mean dasein (actually being there), then mathematical points or theoetical domains do not exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 23:38:55 Subject: Re: Pratt theory On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A.� 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]:� only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of燼 lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, � No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in� economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations)� between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr
Re: Pratt theory
Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: Pratt theory
Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. . -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You
Re: Pratt theory
Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 *Subject:* Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. * Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, * * but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions.* 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal interaction we nd that two events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating all entities of the opposite type. It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to the human mind by way of entangled BECs. The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purely a BEC. So
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Stephen P. King Science advances one funeral at a time. - Max Planck Max Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 23:45:58 Subject: Re: Pratt theory On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal interaction we nd that two events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating all entities of the opposite type. It has been my supposition that the physical brain connects to the human mind by way of entangled BECs. The mind could connect to itself that way since it seems to be purely a BEC. So the physical brain must contain a BEC, I imagine, for this theory to work. Dear Richard, Exactly! This is why I have been so keenly studying that possibility. Unfortunately, papers like that of Tegmark have induced a prejudice in the scientific community against this possibility. No government funding is directed at research in this area. :_( -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 Subject: Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. ?? Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. ?? I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition.? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ?? I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan,? Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.? I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A.? 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]:? only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of?lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, ? No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in? economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Stephen P. King I try to avoid the word existence because, as you show, it can be used in a number of ways ontologically. That's why I use extended and inextended instead. Or try to. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 12:43:58 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Hi Roger, By Existence I mean all that is necessarily possible. By this definition mathematical points and theoretical domains exist. Existence is property neutral, neither defining or excluding what is or what is not. It is not a property. It is what the philosophers attempted to mean by a property bearer and could not escape the illusion of substance. It is Dasein but without the actuality, since this would contradict its neutrality. Both the actual and the possible exist... It is not contingent on observation or measurement or knowledge. On 8/23/2012 9:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It all depends on what you mean by existence. If by existence you mean dasein (actually being there), then mathematical points or theoetical domains do not exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 23:38:55 Subject: Re: Pratt theory On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of?lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Pratt theory
Don't be silly with me On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. 牋� Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. 牋� I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, 牋� Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition.� Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, 牋� The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, 牋� Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, 牋� I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan,� Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means.� I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A.� 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]:� only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of燼lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, � No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines
Re: Re: Pratt theory
I know and that's not science On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 *Subject:* Re: Pratt theory Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 *Subject:* Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. * Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, * * but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions.* 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete
Re: Pratt theory
http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Richard, I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an explanation of what you mean by ...method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness? Are you considering how meta-theory Y can prove statements in a theory X where X /subtheory of Y? On 8/23/2012 9:24 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard snip -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard, OK! I'll read it. On 8/23/2012 1:16 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an explanation of what you mean by ...method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness? Are you considering how meta-theory Y can prove statements in a theory X where X /subtheory of Y? On 8/23/2012 9:24 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard snip -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist I meant that literally, not as an insult. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:14:30 Subject: Re: Re: Pratt theory Don't be silly with me On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:24:36 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, But Pratt theory says that you can, and so do you for that matter. I attribute it to a cosmic consciousness, but that is like saying nothing. ? Yes, but it is a good idea to leave out the cosmic consciousness idea for the purpose of constructing explanations. A game theory mechanism would be so much more useful and convincing but with out eliminating the possibility of cosmic consciousness. ? I agree but must point out that the cosmic version cannot be defined in terms of a single Boolean algebra. The closest thing is a superposition of infinitely many Boolean algebras (one for each possible consistent 1p), which is what we have in a logical description of a QM wave function. The trick is to jump from a 2-valued logic to a complex number valued logic and back. This just the measurement problem of QM in different language. Gotta go now. Catch you later. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:56 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? Yes, 3p is in the mind of the individual. We cannot turn a 3p into a 1p and maintain consistency. Think of how a cubist painting (which superposes different 1p) looks... On 8/23/2012 7:48 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Could you not say that 3p is in the mind but only 1p is physical? I claim that whatever turns 3p into 1p is divine, by definition. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? The 1p is the subjective view of one observer. It is not inconsistent with GR proper. The problem happens when we abstract to a 3p. I claim that there is no 3p except as an abstraction, it isn't objectively real. On 8/23/2012 7:40 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Please tell me how 1p is inconsistent with GR. I thought it was inconsistent with QM. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? Yes, the tough but fun part is understanding the continuous version of this for multiple 1p points of view so that we get something consistent with GR. On 8/23/2012 7:32 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Agreed. All possible states are present in the mind, but IMO only one state gets to be physical at any one time, exactly what Pratt seems to be saying. That's why I called it an axiom or assumption. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Richard, ? I was just writing up a brief sketch... I too am interested in a selection rule that yields one state at a time. What I found is that this is possible using an itterated tournament where the winners are the selected states. We don't eliminate the multiverse per se as serves as the collection or pool or menu of prior possible states that are selected from. What is interesting about Pratt's idea is that in the case of the finite and forgetful residuation the menu itself is not constant, it gets selected as well. On 8/23/2012 6:45 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for telling me what bisimulation means. I was interested in that choosing only one state at a time eliminates the multiverse. Richard On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of?lternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice
Re: Re: Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard Ruquist Leibniz does not contradict science in any way. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 13:14:59 Subject: Re: Re: Pratt theory I know and that's not science On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 09:44:45 Subject: Re: Pratt theory Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel proved, provides the basis for emergence. Now if only someone could explain how emergence works. Can Pratt theory do that? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-22, 16:04:31 Subject: Pratt theory Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in di erent worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic ow in opposite directions. 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our rst distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using di erent variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of 1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not eld) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only one state at a time may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16
Re: Pratt theory
Hi Richard! Wonderful! Another pair of eyes looking at Pratt's work. This is progress! There are a couple open problems, such as how to model large networks of bisimulations but from my toy model study I think I have a solution to that one. The only technical problems are the formulation of a tensor product rule for arbitrary Monads (whose bodies/minds are the logical algebra and topological space couples that Pratt models using Chu_k spaces) and the forgetful version of residuation. I have some ideas on those too... By the way, the entire question of particles/strings/etc. is reduced to a phenomenology/epistemology question that can be addressed using computational simulation modeling and considerations of observational bases. We only need to recover/derive the data not the stuff. The mereology of monads would follow the entanglement scheme of QM (for Chu_k ; k = complex number field) and allow us to use the pseudo-telepathy idea from quantum game theory to model bisimulation networks in a different basis. What I like about this the most is that it offers a completely new paradigm for investigations into physics and philosophy. See http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ph94.pdf for even more discussions. On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Many thanks for this wonderful paper by Vaugh Pratt http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf Pratt theory appears to replace Godellian theory. But Godellian theory manifests consciousness, so some think. And Pratt theory seems to apply to the interaction of physical particles with each other and with the monads Its axioms seem reasonable- but who am I to say. 1.A physical event a in the body A impresses its occurrence on a mental state x of the mind X, written a=|x. 2.Dually, in state x the mind infers the prior occurrence of event a, written x |= a. 3.States may be understood as corresponding more or less to the possible worlds of a Kripke structure, and events to propositions that may or may not hold in different worlds of that structure. 4.With regard to orientation, impression is causal and its direction is that of time. 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. / Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, / / but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic flow in opposite directions./ 6.The general nature of these inferences depends on the set K of values that events can impress on states. 7.Our first distinction between body and mind will be the trivial one of using different variables to range over these sets: A, B over bodies, X, Y over minds. 8.The second distinction will be in how the two kinds of sets transform into each other. 9.Later we make a third distinction within the objects themselves by realizing the two kinds as Chu spaces with dual form factors: sets tall and thin, antisets short and wide. 10.We regard each point of the interval as a weighted sum of the endpoints, assuming nonnegative weights p, q normalized via p + q = 1, making each point the quantity p − q. 11.We shall arrange for Cartesian dualism to enjoy the same two basic connections and the two associated properties, with mind and body in place of −1 and 1 respectively. 12.Minds transform with antifunctions or antisets, and sets are physical. 13.Mental antifunctions/sets copy and delete, whereas physical functions 'identify and adjoin'. 14. For K the set (not field) of complex numbers, right and left residuation are naturally taken to be the respective products ... corresponding to respectively inner product and its dual outer product in a Hilbert space That The numbers ±1 are connected in two ways, algebraic and geometric suggests how the spatial separation of the monads is equivalent to an algebra. This also sounds much like a straight line with points along the line having the properties P,Q such that P+Q=1 Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? 16. the spaces A and B play the interaction game A ⊗ B, their tensor product. 17. The structure of ChuK is that of linear logic [Gir87], which can be understood as the logic of four key structural properties: it is concrete, complete, closed, and self-dual (which therefore makes it also cocomplete and coconcrete). The following implies some sort of entanglement in order to interrogate all entities. When we unravel the primitive causal links contributing to secondary causal interaction we find that two events, or two states, communicate with each other by interrogating all entities of
Re: Pratt theory
On 8/22/2012 8:56 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/22/2012 1:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: 5.Inference is logical, and logic swims upstream against time. / Prolog’s backward-chaining strategy dualizes this by viewing logic as primary and time as swimming upstream against logic, / / but this amounts to the same thing. The basic idea is that time and logic flow in opposite directions./ Logic, including Prolog, has no concept of time. Creating temporal logics is a subject of research. Brent -- Hi Brent, You might like to actually read the entire paper. We have to stop thinking of time as a dimension with material substantist implications. The point is that logic's version of time is the chaining of implications, like what we see in law as stare decisis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent. It flows in the opposite direction of time. Logic looks back to be sure that any new event does not generate a contradiction and material states flow forward giving us the notion of causality. This also makes the relation between thermodynamic entropy and information entropy make perfect sense and prevents the White Rabbit problem without even trying hard. Inconsistent event are simply not allowed to occur, but this forced consistency is over spans that do not just look at the human level of things. This is how we get a symmetric ontology and a consistent dualism, unlike the Cartesian failure. Time flow one direction for matter and implication flows in the opposite direction for its dual. Take this duality to the ultimate level and the differences, flows and change vanishes, leaving a neutral monism ala B. Russell's idea. Bruno is only looking at the logical side of the dualism that Pratt sketched out in his work. I have laboring hard to get Bruno to see the necessity of the other side. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Pratt theory
On 8/22/2012 4:04 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Now this is interesting: Points have necessary existence, all being present simultaneously in the physical object A. 15.States are possible, making a Chu space a kind of a Kripke structure [Gup93]: only *one state at a time* may be chosen from the menu X of alternatives. Seems that divine intervention may be an assumption. I wonder who does the choosing. May I suggest Godellian consciousness? Dear Richard, No need for divine intervention! I am not sure what Godellian consciousness is. Let me comment a bit more on this part of Pratt's idea. The choice mechanism that I have worked out uses a tournament styled system. It basically asks the question: what is the most consistent Boolean solution for the set of observers involved? It seems to follow the general outlines of pricing theory and auction theory in economics and has hints of Nash equilibria. This makes sense since it would be modeled by game theory. My conjecture is that quantum entanglement allows for the connections (defined as bisimulations) between monads to exploit EPR effects to maximize the efficiency of the computations such that classical signaling is not needed (which gets around the no windows rule). This latter idea is still very much unbaked. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
