Re: UDA last question (was UDA step 9 10).

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed Jul 4 08:36:43 2001

Jacques Mallah wrote:

> It should be apparent to all that an objective measure is needed on
>observer-moments.

I agree. (if you agree there is a non trivial conditionalisation,
entailing a non trivial geometry on the space of
observer-moment).

>I do not call this a "3rd person" measure because that
>would falsely imply the existance of some other type of measure to be a
>logical possibility.

I apologise for having written in my last post to joel:

  <<This is of course still countable when you look at the domain
from a third person point of view. But, as you aknowledge in
question 7, the delays does not count for the first person, so
the domain of 1-indeterminacy, which is of course a first person
notion, is, thanks of that delays elimination, given by the
union (which is just the set theoretical interpretation of the or)
of all portion of UD* (the execution of the UD, an infinite
three dimensional cone in case the UD is implemented in a
two dimensional cellular automaton) in which my "preparing coffee"
state appear. (Reread that sentence slowly, I have written
it slowly, and without doubts it's too long).>>

It is better to read (change in capital):

  <<This is of course still countable when you look at the domain
from a third person point of view. But, as you aknowledge in
question 7, the delays does not count for the first person, so
the domain of 1-indeterminacy, which BEARS ON first persons EXPERIENCE
 is, thanks of that delays elimination, given by the
union (which is just the set theoretical interpretation of the or)
of all portion of UD* (the execution of the UD, an infinite
three dimensional cone in case the UD is implemented in a
two dimensional cellular automaton) in which my "preparing coffee"
state appear. (Reread that sentence slowly, I have written
it slowly, and without doubts it's too long).>>


So it is a third person measure on first person experiences.

This is not so important because the "modal" arithmetical
translation i Propose is done at a more abstract level. But ok, I was
phrasing things a little to quickly.

Bruno
Received on Wed Jul 04 2001 - 08:36:43 PDT