On 16 January 2014 19:00, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com>wrote:
> Dear LizR, > > One thing that this line of thinking that I am pursuing implies, is that > systems what have different computational capacities will have differing > "realities". The best analogy/toy model to explain this is to consider an > electron and a human. Very different. What kind of "reality" would it > experience (assuming that consciousness is not something that emerges from > complexity, as per the hand waving arguments from material monist) as > compared to the reality that humans experience? > > My definition of a reality is dependent on the notion of > communication... I digress. The point is that a space-time manifold, > mathematically speaking is defined such that it can capture the notion of > an observer whose "point of view" and inertial frame can be varied in a > continuous fashion. In this way we can canonically make claims like: the > "laws of physics" are the same for all observers, and so forth. It need not > be exactly like that. Nature might not be so smooth and continuous... It > just needs the allow for the possibility of an observer in any situation > that actually allows for observers that can have experiences and that can > communicate with other observers. If I cannot communicate with you, how > would I really know what your universe is really like? > I know where you're coming from, and as I like to say, on days with an 'R' in them I will probably agree! > >> I have to change hats sometimes. In a debate on physics, I wear my >> relativistic hat (which can be worn at any angle) and insist that we take >> account of the space-time manifold. When we get on to metaphysics, of >> course, I switch to a possibly nonexistent, or at least illusory hat... >> > > Sure! I do that too. I have a growing collection of hats. My philosophy > hat is the one that has the most signs of wear... > Hehe. Yes, I can believe that! > >>> I really really like Bruno's notion of an observer. If only we could >>> see eye to eye on the definitions of some other concepts... Such as that >>> Computation is an *action* or transformation, not a static "being". >>> >>> Yes, well that is the eternal, or at least present, "presentism vs >> eternalism" debate. Us (provisional) eternalists can't see why >> you (provisional) presentists insist on there being a need for this >> mysterious change above and beyond what a block multiverse already >> provides. Comp is just the ultimate in emergent time (riding on the >> shoulders of giants like Newton and Einstein of course - which doesn't make >> it true, of course, but does mean that it should be seriously considered). >> > > It might be possible that the debate is based on a false dichotomy. Maybe > presentism and eternalism are both wrong, based on a bad hypothesis of the > nature of time! > That is of course possible. Some have considered a time outside time, for example, especially after taking certain drugs. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
