Re: First, Third Person and Continuum

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu Jul 12 03:29:56 2001

Levy wrote:

>We might as well take the bull by the horns! Let's be precise and expand the
>English language. We can also expand French.
>
>Here is a conjugation that would have tuned white my teacher's hair. :-)
>
>When a first person singular singunal is duplicated you get a first person
>singular plenal (I -> Is - Pronounced Eyes)
>When a second person singular singunal is duplicated you get a second person
>singular plenal (Thou -> Thous)
>When a third person singular singunal is duplicated you get a third person
>singular plenal (He/She -> Hes/Shes)
>When a first person plural singunal is duplicated you get a first person
>plural
>plenal (We -> Wes)
>When a second person plural singunal is duplicated you get a second
>person plural
>plenal (You -> Yous)
>When a third person plural singunal is duplicated you get a third person
>plural
>plenal.(They -> Theys)
>
>Singunal refers to one instance in the plenitude. Plenal refers to several
>instances.
>
>Example of use:
>Is am an joker (in most worlds, eyes am....)
>Yous are unlikely to be Belgian, more likely to be Chinese.
>Hes most probably had one winning lottery ticket.
>Wes are citizens of every country of earth.
>Yous (Western Europeans) have not all formed the EU.
>Theys (Aliens) have landed on the earth.


This is syntacticaly very funny. I'm not sure it can have a semantics
(meaning). That recalls us that the question of the number of persons
is still an open problem. I mean I am not sure that Is (your plural
for I) does not refer to all living beings of the multimulti...verse.
I would say Is am Bruno as Is am George...
In some novel I begun, each individual live with younger and older
clones of him/herself. Probably your new conjugation can be very useful
in such local context. Sure.


>> Sure, but what is a frame of reference? Perhaps a closure for
>> a sort of comp entanglement.
>
>Yes I agree. It is a comp entanglement, a loss of mutual degree of freedom
>in the
>branching pattern.
>My branch is your branch.
>Mi casa es su casa. :-)


But where does such a loss of mutual degree of freedom come from? I think
that Schmidhuberian prior is at play here. Linking relative complexity
and the 3-measure on 1-experiences is the main difficulty.


>> G* really? What does it have to do with past and futur?
>
>You yourself said that G* is the trace of the UD program, the cone in the
>Plenitude. (actually double cone to represent a logical past and a logical
>future.

Oh! I see where the confusion comes from. It is UD* which is the trace
of the UD program. G* is the Solovay logic of provability I promise
to explain latter ... G* is what I call the machine's guardian angel, the
truth theory of the self-referential discourse by the (sound) machine.

It seems you are confusing UD and G, my dear Udeorge!
Still, "physical pasts and futures" can be shown to be homogeinised in the
whole UD*, in the wole block mindscape.

>You are right. The cone is a logical branching cone. in which the probability
>measure propagate from branching point to branching point.


OK, I see what you mean now.


Bruno
Received on Thu Jul 12 2001 - 03:29:56 PDT