On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 10:27 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what about Glak, a being in an alternative physics?
If Glak mind obeys to the laws of Boole, and if Glak as a finite
body, and if he is self-referentially correct, then we share with
Glak the same
Dear Bruno,
I don't see how it follows that Pratt's theory does not allow for a FPI.
I have repeatedly said that a 3p is a construct from 1p and does not have
content outside of some 1p. He does not assume that the universe is
classical, as you do. You are the one making a mistake, I am afraid.
On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:26, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent!
Indeed! A theory that explains everything must be more than a list
of tautologies!
Good. And that's the case with comp. We get 8 logics and mathematics.
Bruno
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 5:25 PM, meekerdb
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:21, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 07:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 10 Jan 2014, at 17:57, Terren Suydam wrote:
Bruno,
It seems that the UDA implies that physics is uniquely determined -
but only for a particular point of view.
Yes, but it is a
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:24, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 10:57, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:34 AM, LizR wrote:
On 10 January 2014 22:27, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't think that there can be a single or multiple processor
computing the state of the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 00:54, meekerdb wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and
simple example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is
computable (this is provable if you accept the Church Turing thesis).
But
On 11 Jan 2014, at 01:06, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 12:54, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 1:42 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Second, a reality can exist without being computed. the best and
simple example is arithmetic. Only a very tiny part of it is
computable (this is
On 11 Jan 2014, at 02:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Terren,
Yes, it is about the continuations and measures thereof. I am not
having much luck discovering how the measures are defined.
Yes, that *is* the problem. And that is the result: that very problem
and a translation of that
On 11 Jan 2014, at 02:34, Terren Suydam wrote:
Yeah, if there's one thing about the UDA that seems like magic to
me, that's it - how an infinity of emulations condense into a
single conscious experience.
I would be please to understand the problem. If you are OK with step
3, you know
On 11 Jan 2014, at 03:57, Terren Suydam wrote:
If they're all truly identical then yes, it's much easier to see how
it could be experienced as a single consciousness.
But what precisely does it mean for an infinity of computations to
go through my state?
It means that from your first
On 11 Jan 2014, at 04:12, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 15:57, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com
wrote:
If they're all truly identical then yes, it's much easier to see how
it could be experienced as a single consciousness.
But what precisely does it mean for an infinity of
On 11 Jan 2014, at 06:05, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
I will try a crude summary and hope to not be misunderstood... It
starts with the Stone duality, a well known isomorphism between
Boolean algebras and totally disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces.
The former are
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:29, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Hmm? Steven turns into a White Rabbit is not a logical
contradiction, it's a nomological one. If there's a transition from
(t1,x1) to (t2,x2) it seems the only logical contradiction would be
x2=Not x1 at t1. Logical is
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*,
which from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the
1p delay invariance.
The UD never stops. If a process lasts forever, it is eternal,
On 11 Jan 2014, at 09:04, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I don't see how it follows that Pratt's theory does not allow for
a FPI. I have repeatedly said that a 3p is a construct from 1p
But then you make the 1p primitive, which contradicts many of your
saying.
You know the
On 11 Jan 2014, at 09:28, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Your consciousness condenses into here and now for the same
measure the guy in Washington feel to be in only once city after the
WM-duplication.
Read: Your consciousness condenses into here and now for the same
REASON the guy in Washington
On 11 January 2014 17:41, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 7:36 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 16:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/10/2014 6:01 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 14:34, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, if there's
On 11 January 2014 20:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*, which
from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the 1p delay
invariance.
The UD never stops. If a process lasts
On 11 Jan 2014, at 11:01, LizR wrote:
On 11 January 2014 20:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*,
which from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the
1p delay invariance.
Hi Edgar,
My theory of consciousness is made considerably clearer in detail in my book
on Reality if you want to get the full story :-)
The answers to some of your questions:
Sure dreams are real, like everything is, but their reality is that they are
dreams. Actually mind is continually
Hi Bruno,
The WM experiment is easy to grasp. For me the difficulty lies, as Liz
guessed, with the infinity of possibilities. For continuation Cn does p(n)
stabilize as the number of computations approaches infinity? Are there an
infinity of possible continuations? Are they enumerable? I mean
Hi Bruno,
Unfortunately I don't have enough familiarity with the math to follow you
here. It is something I'd like to become fluent in one of these days but
unfortunately I barely have enough time these days to read this list.
However one thing still nags me. I don't find it hard to imagine that
Dear LizR,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:01 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 January 2014 20:56, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*,
which from the first person perspective is entirely given,
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive.
Both emerge from the additive-multiplicative structure of arithmetic (AR),
and that structure provides the neutral stuff.
Ontological neutrality is that there are no
Dear Friends,
I highly recommend Louis H. Kauffman's new blog. His latest post speaks
to the Becoming interpretation of mathematics that I advocate:
http://kauffman2013.wordpress.com/2014/01/11/is-mathematics-real/
--
Kindest Regards,
Stephen Paul King
--
You received this message
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Friends,
I highly recommend Louis H. Kauffman's new blog. His latest post speaks
to the Becoming interpretation of mathematics that I advocate:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 08:56, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Der Bruno,
The UD has no output. I guess you think to the trace of the UD, UD*, which
from the first person perspective is entirely given, by the 1p delay
invariance.
On 11 January 2014 23:32, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 11 Jan 2014, at 11:01, LizR wrote:
nor does it do anything - it's simply there, in a timeless realm.
UD* does not do anything, but we can say that relatively to the addition
and multiplication laws, the UD does something,
By the way
2014/1/11, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear Friends,
I highly recommend Louis H. Kauffman's new blog. His latest post speaks
to the Becoming interpretation of
By the way, what about if you find a mathematical theory that show that:
computer programs and matematical proofs are no longer something out
of math, but mathematical structures and both are essentially the same
thing: both are paths from premises to conclussion in a space with
topological
The mathematical entity GG wraps right around itself. Just so does our
language and apparent existence wrap around itself and give us the
possibility that we are ‘nothing more’ than our own description of our own
description, a kind of illusion that generates its own illusion.
Lovely! The sort
That sounds like (some of) what Bruno talks about. The computer programme
known as the UD (and its trace) are in maths. (And didn't Godel make
proofs paths of maths?)
On 12 January 2014 10:41, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, what about if you find a mathematical theory
Note however that Kauffman does not go into axioms involved for set theory,
whichever version he is referencing I can't make out, and steps to the side
of that. The article would loose a bit of its metaphorical slickness if he
had, I'd guess... PGC
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:45 PM, LizR
On 1/10/2014 11:29 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Brent,
Hmm? Steven turns into a White Rabbit is not a /*logical*/ contradiction, it's a
/*nomological*/ one. If there's a transition from (t1,x1) to (t2,x2) it seems the only
/*logical*/ contradiction would be x2=Not x1 at t1. Logical is
On 1/10/2014 11:43 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But what is the measure of relative persistence?
It is the measure almost defined by the material hypostases (in S4Grz1, Z1* and X1*). It
defines the comp physical laws.
How do those different logics define a measure over possible physics?
Brent
Dear Brent,
If there exit an infinite number of observers and similarities in the 1p
content of those observers is a priori possible, it follows that there will
be regularities as those are the similarities that observers share.
The brain in a vat thought experiment is an attempt to ask
On 1/11/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive. Both emerge
from the additive-multiplicative structure of arithmetic (AR), and that structure
provides the neutral
Dear Brent,
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 6:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 1/11/2014 6:43 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Bruno,
You wrote:
AR provides the neutral monism!
Comp is neutral monism. Neither mind, nor matter are taken as primitive.
Both emerge from the
On 12 January 2014 12:08, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Because everything is arithmetic IS neutral monism:
Neutral monism is a monistic metaphysics. It holds that ultimate reality
is all of one kind. To this extent neutral monism is in agreement with
idealism and materialism. What
But the proofs where not studied before as mathematical structures.
Godel and any mathematician did profs, but proofs where
meta-mathematical, in the sense that they were not mathematical
objects, although they could be formalized in a language. The same
happened with the notion of equality and
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of the properties required to
balance it all out to Nothing is not neutral. It is biased!
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 8:32 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with
consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and
On Saturday, January 11, 2014 11:12:46 PM UTC-5, ColinHales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s grapplings
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of the properties required to
balance it all out to Nothing is not neutral. It is biased!
On 12 January 2014 15:12, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science’s
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.comwrote:
Dear LizR,
That is the claim and I show that it is false. A class that has a
particular set of properties and not the rest of the
Phlogiston!!! Nice to hear from you, Colin! :-)
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 11:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales
cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I
On 1/11/2014 8:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014
Consciousness as a State of Matter
Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014
Hi Folk,
Grrr!
I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with
consciousness, the
On 1/11/2014 9:33 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear LizR,
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 12:00 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 January 2014 14:52, Stephen Paul King stephe...@provensecure.com
mailto:stephe...@provensecure.com wrote:
Dear LizR,
Dear Brent,
I am writing about concepts that are more fundamental than physics, but
some of the same ideas transfer from the fundamental to the phenomenal.
Physics is phenomena that we can observe and measure...
Neutrality is the absence of properties or the sum of all possible
properties.
50 matches
Mail list logo
