RE: 3-Brain <-> 1-Mind?
Stephen P. King
This point is very important in my own research! I would like to
point out that the ascription of a 1-mind to a 3-brain is such that it is
not unique (as we have the example of multiple personality disorder!), it is
at least a many to one map just as ascribing 3-brains to a 1-mind. I claim
that this is understandable in terms of a mathematical duality relation. The
trick is in figuring out how these mappings between the duals leads to a
mechanism that selects individual pairs. This is what V. Pratt discovered in
his work on Chu Spaces. Current work is ongoing to see if this works in
terms of Hilbert spaces. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626v4 for the
preliminary ideas.
Onward!
Stephen P. King
-----Original Message-----
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:25 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: numbers?
On 02 Aug 2010, at 00:30, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be
> possible to prove that the level 4 multiverse is "accounted for" by a
> mathematical structure..
Hmm... Lawvere has tried to build an all encompassing universal mathematical
structure, but he failed. It was an interesting failure as he discovered the
notion of topos, (discovered also independently by Groethendieck) which is
more a mathematical mathematician than a mathematical universe.
Also Tegmark is not aware that Digital Mechanism entails the non locality,
the indeterminacy and the non cloning of matter, and that DM makes the
physical into a person-modality due to the presence of the mathematician in
the arithmetical reality.
Quanta are special case of first person plural sharable qualia.
> It's a project I've been working on which assumes that the reality
> hypothesis implies the mathematical universe hypothesis.
I can only encourage you to proceed, but it may be nice to try using the
already existing results in the field. Tegmark is not aware of the
importance of the mind-body problem when searching a toe. He uses implicitly
the brain-mind identity thesis which breaks down with digital mechanism (and
plausibly with any form of reasonable mechanist assumption). You can ascribe
an 1-mind to a 3-brain, but you can only ascribe a whole infinite set of
3-brain to a 1-mind.
- Bruno Marchal
John Mikes
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3047 - Release Date: 08/03/10 02:35:00
Quentin Anciaux
Since two weeks or so, I don't receive the text of your mails in my gmail box... the only thing I get is what is below "No virus found ....".
What is strange is if I go directly in google groups to the everything list page, there, the text of your message is available. Since it happens only with your emails, I suppose there is some kind of a problem on your end with the way your email software sends them.
Regards,
Quentin
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3047 - Release Date: 08/03/10 02:35:00
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Stephen P. King
Hi Folks,
I hope this gets through. My Outlook 2010 email app is still Beta, typical Microsoft buggy, but I am not sure why my posts are not going through…
***
Dear Bruno,
This point is very important in my own research! I would like to point out that the ascription of a 1-mind to a 3-brain is such that it is not unique (as we have the example of multiple personality disorder!), it is at least a many to one map just as ascribing 3-brains to a 1-mind. I claim that this is understandable in terms of a mathematical duality relation. The trick is in figuring out how these mappings between the duals leads to a mechanism that selects individual pairs. This is what V. Pratt discovered in his work on Chu Spaces. Current work by several people including myself is ongoing to see if this works in terms of Hilbert spaces. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626v4 for some preliminary ideas.
-----Original Message-----
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 5:25 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: numbers?
On 02 Aug 2010, at 00:30, Brian Tenneson wrote:
> As a corollary to some of Tegmark's theory I believe it will be
> possible to prove that the level 4 multiverse is "accounted for" by a
> mathematical structure..
Hmm... Lawvere has tried to build an all encompassing universal mathematical structure, but he failed. It was an interesting failure as he discovered the notion of topos, (discovered also independently by Groethendieck) which is more a mathematical mathematician than a mathematical universe.
Also Tegmark is not aware that Digital Mechanism entails the non locality, the indeterminacy and the non cloning of matter, and that DM makes the physical into a person-modality due to the presence of the mathematician in the arithmetical reality.
Quanta are special case of first person plural sharable qualia.
> It's a project I've been working on which assumes that the reality
> hypothesis implies the mathematical universe hypothesis.
I can only encourage you to proceed, but it may be nice to try using the already existing results in the field. Tegmark is not aware of the importance of the mind-body problem when searching a toe. He uses implicitly the brain-mind identity thesis which breaks down with digital mechanism (and plausibly with any form of reasonable mechanist assumption). You can ascribe an 1-mind to a 3-brain, but you can only ascribe a whole infinite set of 3-brain to a 1-mind.
- Bruno Marchal
***
Onward!
Stephen P. King
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Quentin Anciaux
I can read it on http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/browse_thread/thread/8fdc67076f24fb25
Very strange.
Regards,
Quentin
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3049 - Release Date: 08/03/10 10:22:00
Quentin Anciaux
see http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/a4cc79d81b2fd6f2?dmode=source
Your mail is marked as multipart/alternative.... The alternative 'text/plain' contains the text, but the alternative 'text/html' doesn't...
But gmail in this case only shows the 'text/html' (when it have choice between the two, as your message marked as multipart/alternative should allow) hence the empty message... perhaps it's a misconfiguration in outlook or a bug in the beta...
Regards,
Quentin
Bruno Marchal
Dear Bruno,
This point is very important in my own research! I would like to
point out that the ascription of a 1-mind to a 3-brain is such that it is
not unique (as we have the example of multiple personality disorder!), it is
at least a many to one map just as ascribing 3-brains to a 1-mind. I claim
that this is understandable in terms of a mathematical duality relation. The
trick is in figuring out how these mappings between the duals leads to a
mechanism that selects individual pairs. This is what V. Pratt discovered in
his work on Chu Spaces. Current work is ongoing to see if this works in
terms of Hilbert spaces. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.1626v4 for the
preliminary ideas.
Stephen P. King
Hi Bruno,
Thanks for pointing this out to me (again?)! I think that what I have in mind in a bit more primitive than Galois connection in that I do not assume a partial ordering or any ordering at all a priori. I am trying to sketch out a structure that would have Galois connections as special cases. I think that one difference in our approaches is at the metaphysical level, in the set of basic ideas that we use. I do not assume a pre-existing ordering as I found that this notion is problematic for computational complexity reasons. I assume that Becoming is fundamental and that Being is the automorphism in it. Here is my reasoning: consider the collection of all possible minds (even those that are insane!) and the collection of all possible brains (digital or otherwise). Is there a unique mapping between these two collections such that there are multiple pairings that can represent the brains/minds of each of us as we experience a common world? We are not “frozen in time; we have the appearance of a stream of events that we experience sequentially. Additionally we have Relativity which tells us that there is no absolute frame of reference.
We seem to assume that there is, but what worries me is that there has not been much thought about the necessary and sufficient conditions for such. I got the idea while studying the Monadology of Leibnitz. His Theory of Everything depends on an all-knowing entity generating a grand orchestration – a “pre-ordained harmony” – that would match any event of within one Monad with any other such that a “best possible world” would obtain. The problem is that there are at least a countable infinity of possible events that have to be matched up to see which concurrency is the “best”. This is known to be a NP-Complete problem as it is the same thing as the traveling salesman problem over an infinite number of cities. What is the best route to take for such? Of course we can assume a prior existing ordering or measure by labeling events with numbers and using the natural ordering of the numbers, but this is cheating since the events themselves are not such that they have a unique value, in effect they are “fungible”. This line of thinking takes us back to the discussions of Observer Moments that we had…
My alternative is to drop the insistence on a priori orderings and use the idea of “local orderings” that emerge from interactions of systems that have finite computational resources.
Let me get back to the Brains and minds question. Your statement that “To a mind, from the mind's point of view, we have to associate (from a third person point of view) an infinity of brains (indeed all the virtual or arithmetical brains in sufficiently similar states generated by the Universal Dovetailer or by the proof of the relevant sigma_1 sentences in (Robinson) Arithmetic (by UDA). This is what makes physics a sum on an infinity of computations.“ is part of this but unless there is a measure that would allow one mind to select its next state out of the collection of all possible we wind up in a mess, because minds to themselves are fungible! One is just as good as any other. The UD would have to run eternally to generate the measure… Oh wait! Are you thinking of the “running the UD” itself as the measure?
Hmmmmmmm, this is very interesting, but I still think that it is problematic if only because that would be equivalent to assuming a well ordering over a set that is not well founded! Are we forgetting that a mind can emulate itself emulating another mind? Isn’t this exactly what we have when we imagine the thoughts of some other person that is thinking of our thoughts? Additionally, to identify an infinite process – the running of the UD – with a unique string of numbers that “just exists” doesn’t solve the problem, it just pushes the problem off into a corner.
More soon.
Onward!
Stephen P. King
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 3:17 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
--
Bruno Marchal
Sorry but your message is empty. All I know is that there is no virus.
Well thanks!
Bruno
On 05 Aug 2010, at 22:16, Stephen P. King wrote:
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3052 - Release Date:
> 08/05/10 02:35:00