> On 3 Jul 2019, at 19:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/3/2019 2:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 2 Jul 2019, at 20:22, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7/2/2019 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>>> Which time? I can access only my subjective time, and I would say that my >>>> period between birth and the age of ten has been considerable longer that >>>> the once between 10 and 60. >>> We should send you a clock and a calendar then. >> :) >> >> The whole point is that physics arise from the statistics on first person >> experiences, which are required when we do physical experiment and look at a >> needle. > > The point is that you CAN access clock time and it provides a measure.
Yes, and for doing physics, that is useful. But for solving the mind-body problem, in the computationalist frame, that is what needed to be explain. It is data waiting for a theory. Invoking a physical reality or any sort of god will not work when we assume digital mechanism, given the existence of all computation once we assume elementary arithmetic (as done in physics, or when defining what is a machine). > You may be able to access your subjective time, but does it provide a > measure...and if so what is it? We get three candidates for the logic of the measure one, given by the logic of the intensional variant of G ([]p): []p & p []p & <>t []p & <>t & p With “[]” = Gödel’s beweisbar, and p is any sigma_1 arithmetical sentences (it models the Universal dovetailing). If that logic verifies some technical condition (described by Von Neuman in some papers), the logic should provides the entire probability calculus, as it has to do if Mechanism is correct. G and G* splits both []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p. So we get 5 logics, but normally, only the starred logic should provides the measure, because it depends on the true structure made by the 1p experiences, and not the experienced experiences. Our future depends non locally of all our existing “preparation” or “reconstitution” that exists in the (sigma_1) arithmetic (the universal dovetailer). Te fact that we get already quantum logics (classical and intuitionist) is an invitation to proceed. As we get different quantum logics, it would be interesting and very informative to see which one fits with nature. Bruno > > Brent > >> Thanks for sending me a clock and a calendar, but we cannot use it to solve >> the measure problem, or you are invoking the mind-brain identity link which >> is the problematic thing, not in physics, but in physicalist metaphysics. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >>> 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/b58a68db-71f0-0860-4069-bb932b70f3d4%40verizon.net. > > > -- > 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/52f83768-1396-cc1e-0509-0a09a7a2c4a0%40verizon.net. -- 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/494CE07D-A9CB-4E78-91CA-E4B47F9138B5%40ulb.ac.be.
