Thank you Bruno for the clear explanation.
Let me rephrase your explanation in my own words.
For any point X in the Plenitude corresponding to an observer-moment, a state of
consciousness, or state of a CA, the UD* is just that portion of the Plenitude
constrained by
1) that point taken as a bound
Levy wrote:
>Marchal wrote:
>
>> It is better to read (change in capital):
>>
>> <> from a third person point of view. But, as you aknowledge in
>> question 7, the delays does not count for the first person, so
>> the domain of 1-indeterminacy, which BEARS ON first persons EXPERIENCE
>> is, th
Hi Bruno and all Everythingers
In my opinion, the concept of first person and third person perspective
is really a special case of a continuum.
A first person observation of an event occurs when the event is 100%
coupled with the continued existence of the observer.
A third person observation of
Brent Meeker wrote:
>OK. So do you invoke an anthropic principle in the step (computer law)
>=> (mind law) ...
Let us a say a Church Turing Markov -tropic principle, eventually.
If you want I (re)define the physical by what is observable
by a sound universal machine. And observable is eventuall
Try Foundation of Physics Letters!
Saibal
Russel wrote:
> As many of you are aware, I have been attempting to publish "Why
> Occams Razor" for about 18 months now. In September, it will have been
> two years since I wrote the paper. I first tried Phys Rev - which
> rejected it on editorial pol
Correction: the journal is called Foundations of
Physics.
Hi Russell,
> [...]
>I have a question in light of this for the group. Come September (2nd
>anniversary of Why Occams Razor), if I've had no joy with
>J. Theoretics, I would like to try another journal. All I ask is that
>my paper be properly peer reveiwed. Does anyone have any suggestions?
>What
7 matches
Mail list logo
