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.
