On 7/1/2019 7:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
But my memory only goes back so far. So unless it's future infinite,
it's finite.
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.
A "person" is not a simple notion either.
With mechanism there are many notion of immortality.
But you rely on a notion of temporal continuity to define FPI.
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/7f3cc413-9184-d1df-9d5c-d4294e5e2393%40verizon.net.
