On 14 Sep 2016, at 03:25, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On 14/09/2016 10:13 am, Brent Meeker wrote:
On 9/13/2016 7:22 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sunday, 11 September 2016, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
wrote:
In the UD model of the world, time as we perceive it, is
emergent. The "execution" of the program is timeless and exists
in Platonia. So the steps of the UD have no duration, they are
logically prior to time and duration. On the other hand, I think
so called "observer moments" must have duration in the emergent
sense and must overlap. But their relation to the UD threads is
more aspirational than proven.
I think it should be possible to pause and restart at any point a
process underpinning consciousness and leave the stream of
consciousness unchanged; otherwise there would be a radical
decoupling of the mental from the physical. At the limit, this
means the process underpinning consciousness can be cut up into
infinitesimals.
Infinitesimals, I think not, at least not in Bruno's model. Each
thread of the UD's computation can be cut and restarted, but
underlying an "observer moment" or a "thought" are infinitely many
threads and there is no reference by which you can define cutting
them all at "the same time". So they make the "time" of
consciousness essentially real valued.
That understanding of an "observer moment" appears to undermine the
"Yes Doctor" scenario. The point of YD, it seems to me, is that one
can replace oneself with a computer running some program -- the
digital simulation at the basis of mechanism. Such a simulation,
being a single computation, can be stopped and restarted at will
without the observer being conscious of anything. If consciousness,
or "observer moments", are intrinsically made up of an infinite
number of threads, then this is not possible, and YD fails.
That's a reasonable short rendering of the UDA, except that you are
far to quick to conclude.
It looks like YD fails indeed (too much white rabbits a priori), but
when you translated the argument in arithmetic, you get a non trivial
propositional logic for the observable and to see if it fails or not
becomes experimentally testable, and tested partially assuming Everett
QM is the correct empirical theory. Computationalism makes Arithmetic
and QM share in the limit the same internal renormalization problem.
Eventually I conceived that what makes the physical reality and
consciousness possible relies in subtle property of the number 24,
with the help of the total computable functions known as e, pi, gamma,
etc. But here it is just an end of hot summer speculation due to my
contemplation of Moonshine(*).
Bruno
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monstrous_moonshine
Bruce
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
