- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Bruno Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:24:26 +0200

Hi Brent,

Le 05-juin-05, à 13:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :

*>
*

*>
*

*>> -----Original Message-----
*

*>> From: Bruno Marchal [mailto:marchal.domain.name.hidden]
*

*>> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2005 7:02 AM
*

*>> To: "Hal Finney"
*

*>> Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
*

*>> Subject: Re: Observer-Moment Measure from Universe Measure
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> Le 05-juin-05, à 05:53, Hal Finney a écrit :
*

*>>
*

*>>> Lee Corbin writes:
*

*>>>> But in general, what do observer-moments explain? Or what does the
*

*>>>> hypothesis concerning them explain? I just don't get a good feel
*

*>>>> that there are any "higher level" phenomena which might be reduced
*

*>>>> to observer-moments (I am still very skeptical that all of physics
*

*>>>> or math or something could be reduced to them---but if that is
*

*>>>> what is meant, I stand corrected). Rather, it always seems like
*

*>>>> a number of (other) people are trying to explain observer-moments
*

*>>>> as arising from the activity of a Universal Dovetailer, or a
*

*>>>> Platonic ensemble of bit strings, or something.
*

*>>>
*

*>>> I would say that observer-moments are what need explaining, rather
*

*>>> than
*

*>>> things that do the explaining. Or you could say that in a sense they
*

*>>> "explain" our experiences, although I think of them more as *being*
*

*>>> our experiences, moment by moment. As we agreed:
*

*>>>
*

*>>>>> An observer-moment is really all we have as our primary experience
*

*>>>>> of
*

*>>>>> the world. The world around us may be fake; we may be in the
*

*>>>>> Matrix
*

*>>>>> or
*

*>>>>> a brain in a vat. Even our memories may be fake. But the fact
*

*>>>>> that
*

*>>>>> we
*

*>>>>> are having particular experiences at a particular moment cannot be
*

*>>>>> faked.
*

*>>>>
*

*>>>> Nothing could be truer.
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>>
*

*>> All right. So you both (Hal Finney and Lee Corbin) with the first
*

*>> axiom
*

*>> defining a knower. It is the incorrigibility axiom: let us write Cp
*

*>> for
*

*>> "to know p" (or to be aware of p, or to be conscious of p).
*

*>> incorrigibility can be stated by:
*

*>>
*

*>> Cp -> p
*

*>>
*

*>> Meaning that for any proposition p we have that Cp -> p is true.
*

*>> The implication arrow "->" is just the classical implication. It has
*

*>> nothing to do with notions of causality, or deduction or whatever ...
*

*>> We can define A -> B by ((not A) or B) or (not (A and not B)) as this
*

*>> can be verified by truth-table. I recall:
*

*>>
*

*>> A -> B
*

*>> 1 1 1
*

*>> 1 0 0
*

*>> 0 1 1
*

*>> 0 1 0
*

*>>
*

*>> OK?
*

*>
*

*> No. To be conscious of p, where p is some proposition, doesn't imply
*

*> that p is
*

*> true - one is often mistaken.
*

You are right. (i *was* supposing p true!)

*> It seems to me that the incorrigibility of
*

*> experience is just CCp->Cp, i.e. propositions that you seem to
*

*> perceive "p" may
*

*> be incorrigble. Cp->p only works where p isimplicitly is of the form
*

*> Cq.
*

OK, but this is Loeb theorem and I will use the B instead of C.

I continue to accept Cp -> p for standard knowledge. We don't say say

"John knew that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, but he was false" we say ""John

believed that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, but he was false" . By definition we

cannot know something false. It is the standard definition. But you are

right I should not have used the term "conscious" nor "aware" here!

Thanks for the correction,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 02:28:40 PDT

Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 08:24:26 +0200

Hi Brent,

Le 05-juin-05, à 13:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :

You are right. (i *was* supposing p true!)

OK, but this is Loeb theorem and I will use the B instead of C.

I continue to accept Cp -> p for standard knowledge. We don't say say

"John knew that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, but he was false" we say ""John

believed that (a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, but he was false" . By definition we

cannot know something false. It is the standard definition. But you are

right I should not have used the term "conscious" nor "aware" here!

Thanks for the correction,

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Received on Mon Jun 06 2005 - 02:28:40 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:10 PST
*