> On 1 Jul 2019, at 07:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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.
Not necessarily. We can be immortal by being incarnated on some circular time, like in Gödel’s universe, or like in any circular computations existing in arithmetic. Like “infinite”, “immortal” is not a simple notion, and it can be many different things. I am not sure that the concept of infinite(personal) history can make sense. With mechanism there are many notion of immortality. > 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. I use the provability logic to avoid intuitive speculation, which in this domain can only be misleading. I use computationalism only because the questions are amenable to mathematics, but the math here is known to be counter-intuitive, with many truth which becomes false when asserted, etc. We have to be very cautious and modest here. Bruno > > 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. -- 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/FBFDA6C4-514C-41D0-BA7A-FBE0DE0EBF05%40ulb.ac.be.
