On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <stephe...@provensecure.com > wrote:
> Hi Stathis, > > I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we > need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the > timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this > requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not > be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the > processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each. > Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the definition of supervenience. > > That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of > entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of > time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer > moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our > theory. > Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they > could point me to? > If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world is timeless. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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.
