### Re: Some books on category and topos theory

Bruno Marchal in an older post wrote: Also, can you elaborate a bit more on the motivation behind category theory? Why was it invented, and what problems does it solve? What's the relationship between category theory and the idea that all possible universes exists? Tim makes a very

### Re: Probability

Le 06-nov.-08, à 21:45, rmiller a écrit : At 10:54 AM 11/6/2008, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Nov 2008, at 02:37, Thomas Laursen wrote: Hi everyone, I am a complete layman but still got the illusion that maybe one day I would be able to understand the probability part of MW if

### Re: Probability

Thomas, MW must be some how different from the same concept in everyday language? In the latter probably just means likely to happen but if EVERYTHING happens then how can the concept make sense? I guess it must be two different concepts, then? I wouldn't say so. Always look at the word

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

Hello Günther, Hello Bruno, More exactly: I can conceive fake policemen in paper are not conscious, and that is all I need to accept I can be fail by some zombie. Thus I can conceive zombies. Ok, but conceivability does not entail possibilty. I think philosophical zombies are

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

Hi Bruno, I can agree for all computational states of some (universal) machine. If you don't precise what you mean by state it is a bit too much general. Imo. I mean either: all computational states OR all physical states - depending on whether comp or phys is true. Where the difference

### Re: Probability

Thomas, epistemic state of an agent, or in the proverbial 10-year-old's words, knowledge of the state of affairs from a certain point of view. This is the Bayesian interpretation of probability. EVERYTHING happens can be interpreted as an expression in terms of the frequentist interpretation of

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On 07 Nov 2008, at 03:27, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jason, Le 04-nov.-08, à 23:21, Jason Resch a écrit : although I agree with Brent, if the simulated world in the computer is entirely cut off from causal

### Re: Probability

Anna's explanation was from the frequentist side. Gunther's was from the Bayesian side. On Nov 7, 10:13 am, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thomas, epistemic state of an agent, or in the proverbial 10-year-old's words, knowledge of the state of affairs from a certain point of view.

### Re: Probability

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anna's explanation was from the frequentist side. Gunther's was from the Bayesian side. I actually agree with the Bayesian point of view, but I was trying to avoid injecting expectation into a description of how infinite

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement, which is itself encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the

### Contradiction. Was: Probability

But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal sense: a lack of mathematical contradiction. All things that

### Re: Probability

Anna, OK, I understand. Thomas, as another reference point for study, what I refer to as the point of view from the Plenitude, or Plotinus' One, has frequently been referred to as the God's eye point of view. (I didn't bring that up at first because I believe in a God who is different from the

### Re: Probability

(By the way, the personal God is the only one in whom a person can possibly believe, but that could be another topic.) Absolutist statements make proof by contradiction easy. :) Anna --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed

### Re: Probability

My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is personal (i.e. from the point of view of a person), or 1+1=2. Not all absolutist

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

On 07 Nov 2008, at 08:51, Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement, which is itself encoded (indeed

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

I like this topic. I will think about it a little first. By the way, is your use of blue and red a metaphor for Obama and McCain? ;) Tom On Nov 7, 10:44 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models

### Re: Probability

... or akin to this from the QTI thread: In the standard view, believing in philosophical zombies means believing that it's logically possible for there to be a physical copy of me that's identical to me in every physical way, except that it's not conscious. (Like Dennett, I think that's

### Re: Probability

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point of view is subjective, or more closely, a person's point of view is personal (i.e.

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like this topic. I will think about it a little first. By the way, is your use of blue and red a metaphor for Obama and McCain? ;) Wow. :) Subconciously, perhaps in part. But it's mainly because the last pair of

### Re: Probability

Hin 2008/11/7 Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Anna, OK, I understand. Thomas, as another reference point for study, what I refer to as the point of view from the Plenitude, or Plotinus' One, has frequently been referred to as the God's eye point of view. (I didn't bring that up at first

### Re: Probability

Günther Greindl wrote: Thomas, MW must be some how different from the same concept in everyday language? In the latter probably just means likely to happen but if EVERYTHING happens then how can the concept make sense? I guess it must be two different concepts, then? I wouldn't

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

A. Wolf wrote: But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal sense: a lack of mathematical

### Re: Some books on category and topos theory

On 07 Nov 2008, at 15:57, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: Bruno Marchal in an older post wrote: Also, can you elaborate a bit more on the motivation behind category theory? Why was it invented, and what problems does it solve? What's the relationship between category theory and the idea that

### Re: Probability

On Nov 7, 11:11 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My interpretation/intent of my below statement is a simple logically consistent statement, akin to saying that a person's subjective point of view is subjective, or

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Nov 2008, at 08:51, Kory Heath wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Just consider the computation which correspond to your actual real life. That computation is encoded (indeed an infinity of times) in the Universal Deploiement,

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

If you don't require some mathematical model of evolution of states determining what happens in a Markovian way (like a Schroedinger eqn for example) then one consistent mathematical model is just a list:... Anna wore a red sweater on 6 Nov 2008, Anna wore a blue sweater on 7 Nov 2008, Anna

### Re: QTI euthanasia (brouillon)

Bruno, Thanks for your answers, I think it is safe to say we are on the same page with the UDA. I accept mathematical realism and therefore the existence of abstract Turing machines defining the computational histories of all programs, or the equations of string theory defining all true

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

A. Wolf wrote: If you don't require some mathematical model of evolution of states determining what happens in a Markovian way (like a Schroedinger eqn for example) then one consistent mathematical model is just a list:... Anna wore a red sweater on 6 Nov 2008, Anna wore a blue sweater on 7

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

Does model imply a theory which predicts the evolution of states (possibly probabilistic) so that the state of universe yesterday limits what might exist today? No. Model means a mathematical object. One specific, unchanging, crystalline object you can hold in your hand and look at from a

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

A. Wolf wrote: Does model imply a theory which predicts the evolution of states (possibly probabilistic) so that the state of universe yesterday limits what might exist today? No. Model means a mathematical object. One specific, unchanging, crystalline object you can hold in your

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

But not a logical contradiction. It would just contradict our assumed model of physics, i.e. a nomological contradiction. I realize I can't give a concrete example from physics due to the lack of total human understanding, so it is difficult to get across the exact point. If we presume that

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

A. Wolf wrote: But not a logical contradiction. It would just contradict our assumed model of physics, i.e. a nomological contradiction. I realize I can't give a concrete example from physics due to the lack of total human understanding, so it is difficult to get across the exact

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)... would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value. Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for sapience? Anna

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

On Nov 7, 10:44 am, A. Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But this begs the question What is EVERYTHING? I would say the class of all mathematical models which are not self-contradictory constitutes everything. I'd even go so far as to suggest that's exactly what existence is, in a literal

### Re: Contradiction. Was: Probability

A. Wolf wrote: So universes that consisted just of lists of (state_i)(state_i+1)... would exist, where a state might or might not have an implicate time value. Of course, but would something that arbitrary be capable of supporting the kind of self-referential behavior necessary for

### Re: Probability

Many thanks for your fine answers, and patience with an ignorant. When I said probability I meant from the frequentist side, or from what Tegmark has called bird's point of view (which I guess corospond to what Tom calls God's point of view, - whether or not one believes) But the subjective

### Re: Probability

since it's a sequence of trillions and trillions of real (micro-)events. PS. Of course a macro-event is also real but it's not a fundamental event, and therefore the concept probability must be USED differently here, even though the concept itself is the same. Does that sound right?