-
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
: 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
: 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
: 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
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
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
, 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
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?
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
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
-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
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
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
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
22 matches
Mail list logo
