Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 20:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 7/1/2019 5:16 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 13:35, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a > écrit : > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:32 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 09:19, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> a >>> écrit : >>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 5:11 PM Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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". >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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? > Because the premise of the question implies there is an absolute probability associated to every moment or range of moments, that premise is non sensical. Life is a succession of ordered moment, like a program is a succession of ordered steps, it's not meaningful to ask the absolute probability of step n of program x. To be at step N you had to do every previous step. > > 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 > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6d9ee1af-f4d5-7cc8-042a-59f2b6c86a93%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CAMW2kAo8KV3GHEODgdsAAy0VdGLARWy770XY_rH0zPTJRaO19w%40mail.gmail.com.
