Le lun. 1 juil. 2019 à 22:35, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> a écrit :
> > > On 7/1/2019 12:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 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. > > > You can't seem to draw any conclusions from your theory, except that other > theories are wrong. So I guess I'll have to try to guess what you think > your theory implies. For example, it implies that the whatever the > probability of finding yourself at age X, the probability of finding > yourself at age X-1 is greater. Right? > You can't put absolute probability on a moment, it makes no sense. So no, it's not right. The only right absolute probability for any given moment is zero. It's meaningless, life is a *succession* of moment like a program, you can't have n+1 without n. It's absurd to say as there us more steps after n that you should be at a step n+y disregarding that you *had* to do all the previous steps before. > > 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/e4159df0-567d-cf85-d775-2ab675914afc%40verizon.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e4159df0-567d-cf85-d775-2ab675914afc%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/CAMW2kApN1ZM4cwM81%3DO%3DCi20rtg1UHnCsw747mB2si9M4aw9jQ%40mail.gmail.com.
