On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
[SPK]
I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility
that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers
your example, I think...
I am wondering how they are "strung together", to use the analogy
of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a
separate "dimension of time" to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So
how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed
that term) of one OM get related to that of another?
Onward!
Stephen
I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as
computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the
digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in
Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences).
The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and
discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some
internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable
theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small
amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily
include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also
difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted
for in this theory.
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-list@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.
