Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 07:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 6/30/2019 11:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 28 Jun 2019, at 22:31, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/28/2019 8:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Quentin is right on this, we cannot sample a random “observer moment” > (cf ASSA, Absolute Self-Sampling Assumption) without taking the structure > of that set into account. With Mechanism, we can use only a Relative SSA, > both intuitively and formally, by incompleteness which distinguish between > provable(p) and “provable(p) & consistent”. > >> The structure Quentin cited is ordering. > > Good insight, but very natural for being supported by computations, > which can be typically seen as growing trees. It is the state of knowledge > of some subject, and this fit well with its S4Grz logic, which provides an > Intuionist logic for the subject, often having semantics in term of order, > or partial order. > > > > > > > >> But how does that force RSSA in my example of taking a journey, which > is also ordered? > > It is the whole bayesian idea which does not make sense. I state of > consciousness cannot be sampled on all states, the probabilities are > related to histories/computations, with a relative measure conditioned by > some mental state (of a Löbian machine in arithmetic to do the math). > > > > Nothing is obvious here. That is why I “interview” the (Löbian) > universal machine, like PA and ZF. Both agrees, the traditional nuance > brought by the neoplatonic on truth are differentiated due to > incompleteness, and the probabilities are on the sigma_1 true propositions > structured by the provability logics and the intensional variants given by > those definitions. > > > > Also, how do you know that we are we not already very old? Perhaps even > more so if the Big-bang admits a long preceding history, like branes > wandering before colliding … (not that I believe in Brane or string except > in arithmetic and Number theory). But that is irrelevant, because the > self-sample is not on all the moments, but more on the consistent > histories, structure by the laws of computer science/arithmetic, … > > So what? If QI is true then there are infinitely long consistent > histories. Are you saying that the measure is just the number of > consistent histories, independent of their length?...a measure likely to > be dominated by fetuses. > The problem with your argument is it rely on the "fact" that we should only *ever* really live one moment and to expect to be in that moment (either old or fetuses or whatever doesn't matter)... But life is not a single moment, it is a succession of ordered moments... so your argument is absurd. You don't come into existence into a random "moment". Quentin > > Brent > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0804a8ba-28b7-d267-7f41-c6dda10b0e37%40verizon.net > . > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kAoHaTzdZ%2B4KYxmVGC2XZrn-qjDHmOZj0t5J5m8OJmKe%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.
