Re: Pratt theory

[meekerdb]

On 8/24/2012 7:05 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:


"...due to the law of conjugate bisimulation identity:

  A ~ A   =   A ~ B ~ C ~ B ~ A   =   A ~ B ~ A

this is "retractable path independence": path independence only over retractable paths. 


I don't understand this.  You write A~(B~A) which implies that B~A is a "system" (in this 
case one being simulated by A).  But then you write


A~B~A=A~A

and also

A~B~C~A =/= A~C~B~A =/= A~A

This seems inconsistent, since A~B~C~A = A~D~A where D=B~C, but then A~D~A=A~A.  And 
A~C~B~A = A~E~A where E=C~B, and then A~E~A=A~A.  But then A~B~C~A = A~C~B~A.


You drop the parentheses, implying the relation is associative, but then you treat it as 
though it isn't??


Brent

--
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

[Bruno Marchal]

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

Re: Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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  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  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 

Re: Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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 

Re: Pratt theory

[Stephen P. King]

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 
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: Pratt theory

[Richard Ruquist]

http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King 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+unsubscribe@
> **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

[Richard Ruquist]

I know and that's not science

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough  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  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
&g

Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Richard Ruquist]

Don't be silly with me

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough  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 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.
>>
>>
>> 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 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>  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 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  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 >>> > 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 p

Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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: Pratt theory

[Stephen P. King]

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 <mailto: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 <mailto:stephe...@charter.net>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*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-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: Pratt theory

[Stephen P. King]

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: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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  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 interrog

Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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  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  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  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  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  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  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 as bisimulations)? between 
monads to exploit

Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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: Pratt theory

[Richard Ruquist]

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  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
> 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 tha

Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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
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.


But I am more interested in the connection of the mind to physical 
particles/strings.
Particles can become entangled, but they are not BECs.
Elsewhere I have proposed that every physical particle is connected to a (or 
many) monads.
It appears that Pratt theory may work for a particle connected to many or all 
monads.


Thanks again,
Richard




-- 
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@

Re: Re: Pratt theory

[Roger Clough]

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.

Re: Pratt theory

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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 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 
>> 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 
>>> 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 >>> > 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 fo

Re: Pratt theory

[Stephen P. King]

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 
mailto: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
mailto: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
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
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
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 

Re: Pratt theory

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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 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 
>> 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 >> > 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyt

Re: Pratt theory

[Stephen P. King]

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 
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
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
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.


--
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://group

Re: Pratt theory

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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 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 
>> 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.
>

-- 
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

[Stephen P. King]

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 
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
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

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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 
> 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.
>

-- 
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

[Stephen P. King]

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 
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

[Richard Ruquist]

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 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.
>

-- 
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

[Stephen P. King]

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 find 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.

Re: Pratt theory

[Stephen P. King]

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

[Stephen P. King]

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 
. 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

[Richard Ruquist]

Thanks for the critic.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 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
>
> --
> 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

[meekerdb]

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

--
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

[Stephen P. King]

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 a