On 7/1/2019 5:16 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 13:35, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:32 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 09:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit : On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:11 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 07:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <[email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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". But you spend more 'time' living between the ages of 40 and 90 than you do between the ages of 1 and 20! And so what ? you have to have been 20 to be then between 40 and 90... your moments are successive *and not picked up at random*. That does not address the point that I made -- there are more moments between 40 and 90 than between 1 and 20, so you spend more time in your mature years. Pick a time at random, you are likely to be mature. Your points about ordering and succession are completely irrelevant to the main point being made.Again *we don't pick our life moment at random*... I'm living *every day, every second* of my life, there is no wonder to live your life, if your theory is that every human should be between 40 and 90, because they have more moments between 40 and 90 than between 1 and 20, it's absurd... and false.
Actually it's true that there are more humans between 40 and 90 than between 1 and 20. But that's what you would call ASSA. The original point was about one's personal experience and why is it not, with high probability, about being very, very old compared to those around you?
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/6d9ee1af-f4d5-7cc8-042a-59f2b6c86a93%40verizon.net.
