Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]
On 06 Mar 2009, at 18:06, Günther Greindl wrote: The idea was that the numbers encode moments which don't have successors (the guy who transports), that's why there exist alien-OMs encoded in numbers which destroy all the machines (if we assume that arithmetic is consistent). Hmmm (Not to clear for me, I guess I miss something. I can build to much scenario from you say here). Of course we are in complex matter. It is good to recall that UDA is essentially a question. It is an rgument of the kind; did you see that taking comp seriously the mind-body problem is two times more complex that in the usual Aristotelian version of it. We have not only to find a theory of mind/consciousness/psyche:soul/first-person; but we have to extract the physical laws (laws of the observable), if there exists any, from that theory of mind. But now it happens that the theory of mind already exists, if we continue to take the comp hyp seriously. Indeed, it is computer science, alias intensional and extensional number theory (or combinators ...). here there are the bombs (creative bomb) of Post Turing ... discover of the mathemaical concept of universal machine, and of Gödel' Bernay Hilbert Löb's discovery of the formal probability predicate, expressible in arithmetic, and some of its key and stable properties, leter capture completely (at some level) by Solovay. Roughly speaking Universal Machine + induction axioms gives Löbian Machine, and this is the treshold she remains Lobian in all its correct extension. It is the ultimate modest machine. The discovery if the universal machine is a discovery is one of the very rare absolute notion. It makes computable an absolute notion. Now, is the universal machine really universal? That is the content, in the digital realm, of Church Thesis. Gödel discovery is that there is no corresponding notion of provability. If you are interested in just arithmetical truth, truth concerning relations between natural numbers, you cannot have a theory or a machine enumerating all the true propositions. You will have with chance a succession of theories: like Robinson Arithmetic, Peano Arithmetic, Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, ZF+there is an inaccessible cardinal, whatever ... Each of them will prove vaster and vaster portion of arithmetical truth, but none will get the complete picture; like us, obviously today at least. If a successor state requires something impossible, *that* successor state will be impossible, but it does not mean there will not be other successor states, indeed, for mind corresponding on machine's state, a continuum of successor states exists. This is the issue at stake: from what do you gather that all machine states have a continuum of successor states (the aleph_0/aleph_1 is not at issue now; it suffices to say: at least one successor state)? After all, there are halting computations. By step seven. A machine halt only relatively to a universal machine which executes it. The whole problem for *us* is that we cannot not know which univerrsal machine we are, nor really which universal machine supports us. The UD generates your state S again, and again, and again an infinity of time (UD-step time) in many similar and less similar computational histories. The first person expectations have to be defined (by UDA(1-6) on *all* computational histories. If only due to those stupid histories dovetailing on the reals while generating your state S, makes the cardinal of the set of all (infinite) computational histories going through that state S a continuum. That the UDA informal view. In AUDA, the first person view is given by the conjunction of provability with truth. We lose kripke accessibility, but we get a richer topology, close to histories with continuous angles in between; but it is heavily technical. Each hypostases has its own mathematics. Surely more later, Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: [Fwd: NDPR David Shoemaker, Personal Identity and Ethics: A Brief Introduction]
On 06 Mar 2009, at 18:09, Günther Greindl wrote:
Hi Bruno,
With COMP it is not so clear.
explicit appeal to self-consistency (= the move from Bp to Bp Dt;
the
Dt suppresses the cul-de-sac). With comp, to believe in a next
instant or in a successor state is already based on an act of faith.
Please bear in mind that I have not yet studied the AUDA in detail.
How
does Dt suppress cul-de-sac?
By Kripke semantics. A Kripke frame is given by a set of worlds,
together with an accessibility relation between those worlds.
For a mathematical logician a kripke frame is just a set with a binary
relation. By definition a world is just an element of that set, and
the accessibility relation is just that binary relation.
Those Kripke frames are used to provide a mathematical tools to reason
on formal modal logical systems. They provide models of modal theory,
that is mathematical structure which satisfy, in a mathematical sense,
the theorems of the modal logical system.
The idea is that a modal theorem in a modal system should be a formula
true in a ll the worlds of some frame. the hope, indeed realized for
many theories including G (but not G*), is that there is a binary
relation on a type of frame which characterized all and only all the
theorem of the modal system.
We do logic here, meaning we dispose of a set of propositional
variables p, q, r, ...
A frame become a model when you assign on each world a function from
{p, q, r, ...} to {0, 1} (a valuation). If v() = 1 in world alpha, we
say that p is true at world alpha. You make each world obeying
classical logic (for exemple if p is true in alpha, and if q is true
in alpha, you make (p q) true in alpha, etc.
The key of Kripke semantics is that Bp iis true alpha if and only if p
is true in all worlds beta which are accessible (cf the binary
relation of the frame) from alpha.
Now, what does mean to say that Dp is true in alpha? We have no
choice, given that Dp is really an abbreviation of ~B~p, which means
that it is false (in alpha) that B~p, which means that it is false (by
Kripke key point) that ~p is true in all worlds accessible from alpha,
which means (using false - false is a tautology) there is a world,
with p true, accessible from alpha.
So if Dp, or even just Dt is true in alpha, then there is necessarily
a world beta, with p true, or even just t, accessible from alpha.
alpha cannot be a culd-de-sac.
You can note that in cul-de-sac, Dt is false, so Bf is true. Bf is
true because trivially if a world beta is accessible from alpha then f
(false) is true in beta. This is trivially true because the
proposition beta is accessible from alpha is never met, so the
condition is always false, and the propositions have the shape f - f
(a tautology).
To sum up: the Kripke semantics of Bf is I am dead or I am in a cul-
de-sac world.
The Kripke semantics of Dt is I am alive or I am in world able to
access some other world.
World, or moment, or whatever. It is said that Artemov would have
interpret jokingly Dt as I am in country which provides visa.
Günther, I will be frank, this is just elementary modal logic, and
even advanced modal logic is considered easy compared to the
provability logic. Solovay theorem made one precise modal logic, G, an
incredible tools for simplifying the provability logic field. The
modal logic G is to provability logic, what tensor calculus is to
general relativity theory. G is just one modal logic among an ocean of
possible modal logics.
Somehow modal logic is the abstract theory of the multimultiverses.
It is just a wonderful result that the formula of Löb, B(Bp-p)-Bp,
the only axiom of G, (really), formalizes completely the whole field
(at the propositional level). It gives, with the intensional variants,
the whole propositional theology of the honest or correct, or sound,
universal machine. (Universal machine believing some effective
induction principle, they are automatically Löbian).
It is an ideal case, of course, in our lives we are far from lobian.
But it is what we need, by UDA, to get the correct, assuming comp, big
picture, including physics, first and third and first plural physics.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Amoeba's Secret - English Version started
Pre-Scriptum (for John Mikes). John, I will answer your post in the following days. Thanks for your patience. On 07 Mar 2009, at 03:36, Kim Jones wrote: On 06/03/2009, at 11:24 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: - Neither physicists nor logicians really knows about the mind-body problem. So it is easy to make someone interested in consciousness looking crazy: just say: this guy is interested on consciousness (with a grin). Why does some people want me so much looking crazy? Well if I tell you, I would myself find you insane to believe me. So I will not even try. If you known Belgium recent story, you can imagine, and reality is beyond what you can imagine. Bruno last night I dreamt that my cat had divided itself into two cats. Both cats were clones and happily running about and interacting. I could see both and was discussing with some friends the puzzle of why only some people, like me could see the constant clonage of things living. During the dream I had the amazing perception that this was happening to all living objects and it was as logical and certain as anything perceived during the day with eyes wide open. Self-duplication, or its many tortuous delayed forms that nature seems to repeat all the time can give an intuition of all this. This is where the idea are germing. Good dreaming work ! Also amazing - the belief that this is happening to macro (living) objects persisted in my brain for about a half an hour after I woke up. Hmmm... I would complain on your coffee manufacturer :) Unless you enjoyed the feeling. Clearly, translating into English your amoebas is having a profound effect on my unconscious mind. This also highlights for me the mysterious nature of belief. As you mention, early on in the thesis, we can believe no matter what falsity while we are asleep and dreaming. The occasional powerful dream like this one that penetrates the awake conscious mind shakes the very foundations of what we consider to be reality. What then, is the value of paying attention to the dreaming mind in this odyssey of The Fabric of Consciousness we are all hypnotized by at this time? Dreaming, and reflexion on dreams, and dreamy reflexion on dreams are shortcut path in the metaphysical labyrinth, be it day dreaming, mother of mathematics, or night dreaming, mother of metaphysics. Observation is quite important too, for guessing better and better the most stable invariants. But assuming comp, dreams obeys laws, mathematical invariants. Physical realities are consensual realities among many dreaming observers. Physical realities being both deep on surface and linear at the bottom could explain why it looks so computational *around* us, when it is so not *computational* about us. Who dreams? Guess what: only you can decide, and it could be that such a decision will make you immortal here or immortal there. Dreaming or not dreaming, the best we can do is to try to be self- referentially correct with respect to the most probable histories. Look what happen when we aren't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2BgjH_CtIAfeature=channel_page PS - expect to post to this thread an instalment of the continuation of the translation by tonight - am being extremely careful to get it dead right to avoid any ambiguities. I appreciate your seriousness. Take it easy, though, and sleep well :) I will have to reread at ease in April, but it seems quite nice to me, of course at some level I can hardly judge. It is a bit confusing to read oneself, and, in a translation it can be even more weird. Bruno regards, Kim Jones People often confuse belief in a reality with belief in a physical reality - Bruno Marchal http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ Email: kmjco...@mac.com kimjo...@ozemail.com.au Web: http://web.mac.com/kmjcommp/Plenitude_Music Phone: (612) 9389 4239 or 0431 723 001 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: language, cloning and thought experiments
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: 2009/3/8 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com: And if it went to zero you certainly wouldn't know and wouldn't care. If I died I wouldn't be around to know or care, but I would care in anticipation of dying, since it would radically alter my future experiences by eliminating them. On the other hand, 1-1 or many-1 copying would leave my future experiences the same as if the teleportation hadn't occurred. Only for one of you. Many-1 of you would have different future experiences (according to this theory). Why don't you care about the loss of those experiences? You might say that this is an illusion since the original me will actually be dead but the same illusion occurs in ordinary life, and it is the circumstances under which the illusion is preserved that interests me when I think about survival. I'm not sure what you mean by this. What illusion of ordinary life do you refer to? That you are the same as the Stathis of last year? Brent --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
