On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 11:53:01AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 06-juil.-05, ? 07:16, Russell Standish a ?crit :
My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it).
Thinking
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 02:30:47PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Are there reason to believe that (physical, or local) time could have a
scale invariant fractal dimension (between 1 and 2, bigger?) ? Does it
make sense ?
I don't know if this is relevant, but Laurent Nottale published a
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf .
Wouldn't it be true that in the
Le 21-juil.-05, à 08:33, George Levy a écrit :
Hal Finney wrote:
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
George Levy writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf .
Wouldn't it be true that in the manyworld, every quantum branchings that
is decoupled from other quantum branchings would in effect
@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Hi Stephen;
I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are
provisos.
[SPK]
Did you happen to note that my post argued that the idea that time is
a dimension
and not a
book that was written in the beginning.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: RE: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
chris peck wrote:
Thats why I make an appeal to something more intuitive. The A List as
concieved by McTaggart may lead to incoherence, but nevertheless, we are
embedded in the present. To meddle with its order is to conjure up paradox.
Reality can not be like that.
But are you just
Physicist Max Tegmark has an interesting discussion on the
physics of a universe with more than one time dimension at
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.html , specifically
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/dimensions.pdf . In the excerpts
below, n is the number of space dimensions and
in temporally perpendicular
directions?
Regards
Chris.
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:11:01 -0700
Interleaving:
chris peck wrote:
Hi James;
Yes, you are definitely
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
snip
But then, in what way is time asymmetric to space? You have no answer to
that.
There may be operational reasons why time travel is or is not possible -
I don't have any comments on the conjecture of time travel - my only
stance
chris peck wrote:
[c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions
orthogonally configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear
one. [Rose(c)1995].
What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
directions?
similar to what it
Interleaving:
chris peck wrote:
Hi James;
Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
Im not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas,
but as I have said, it wouldnt be troubling to me to be considered
conventional. However, I do think you are being
Le 15-juil.-05, à 04:15, Hal Finney a écrit :
Surely Chaitin's algorithmic information theory would not work;
inputting
a zero length program into a typical UTM would not produce the set of
all infinite length bitstrings; in fact, I don't see how a TM could
even
create such an output from
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:35:01 -0700
Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
The challenging point of view I express goes beyond
the obvious qualia -differences- of space relative
to time, and instead
@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 06:56:28 -0700
Chris,
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:
you cannot identify
No, because I wasn't talking about artificially imposed orderings. One
can always define a strict ordering by means of something like
x y iff Re(x) Re(y) or Re(x)=Re(y) and Im(x)Im(y)
However, the usual meaning of xy for x,y \in C is undefined, except
for x,y real.
I think the previous
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 01:01:29PM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Esteemed Prof. Standish,
You're sounding German here: Sehr Geherte Herr Professor Standish.
Its how they broke the enigma code, you know! At least I'm not the
Very Estimated Professor Standish.
Thank you for that
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Right, that is one of the big selling points of the Tegmark and
Schmidhuber concept, that the Big Bang apparently can be described in
very low-information terms. Tegmark even has a paper arguing that it
took zero information to
Russell Standish writes:
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 04:20:27PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
=20
Right, that is one of the big selling points of the Tegmark and
Schmidhuber concept, that the Big Bang apparently can be described in
very low-information terms. Tegmark even has a paper arguing that
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 07:15:02PM -0700, Hal Finney wrote:
Do you really think there is such a thing as a zero information object?
If so, why do you have to say what it is? :-)
Is this just an informal concept or is there some formalization of it?
Surely Chaitin's algorithmic
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did you
happen to know that the notion of an observable in QM has a complex value and
that a real value only obtains after the multiplication of an observable
Le 13-juil.-05, à 06:02, Russell Standish a écrit :
Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (being basically
points on a plane)
So you pretend the axiom of choice is false. It is easy to build an
ordering of the complex numbers through it.
There is no ordering *which satisfies
Chris,
You unfortunatly are making the same fatal-flaw
mistake that all conventional thinkers -even the
outside the box inventive ones- continue to make:
you cannot identify, distinguish, specify or apply -
complete non-Abelian, non-commutative aspects to
considerations of 'dimensions' - whether
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:54:55AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote:
How familiar are you with the details of quantum mechanics? Did you
happen to know that the notion
, or whether it can be flipped, or whether
backwards in time need be or neednt be represented by positive integers. One
way or the other, time moves on. And if it doesnt, everything stops.
regards;
Chris.
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time
Hal Finney wrote:
Jesse Mazer writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's
ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that
chris peck wrote:
Im fairly sure you are attacking a straw man. We can just say that 'now'
races towards the future rather than the opposite without us exerting any
effort, whilst 'here' doesnt really move at all. Especially for a rock. At
least the a priori notions of each spatial dimension
True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if
you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always
reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each
particle) in the final state and use that as an initial state for a new
Hal Finney wrote:
True, it isn't always necessary to compute things in the same order--if
you're simulating a system that obeys time-symmetric laws you can always
reverse all the time-dependent quantities (like the momentum of each
particle) in the final state and use that as an initial
Jesse Mazer writes:
I've sometimes thought that if uploads are ever created, and can be run in a
simulation with time-reversible fundamental laws, it would be very
interesting to take a snapshot at the end of a simulation and do the trick
of reversing everything, but with a tiny
Hal Finney writes
Lee Corbin writes:
Hal Finney writes
Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some
sense), where there is no actual causality?
You yourself have already provided the key example in
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static Being.
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality- that
results from the
Lee Corbin writes:
Perhaps you could address the biggest stumbling block that perhaps
I still have: continuity.
I'll even go out on a limb and suggest that *continuity* is really
what bothers a lot of people. A lot of us (e.g. Jesse Mazer) are
quite okay with, say, a program that uses the
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of
computations? Can't we
Jesse Mazer writes:
Hal Finney wrote:
I imagine that multiple universes could exist, a la Schmidhuber's ensemble
or Tegmark's level 4 multiverse. Time does not play a special role in
the descriptions of these universes.
Doesn't Schmidhuber consider only universes that are the results of
of being.
I don't have a mental picture of what this statement means.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time
[SPK]
Oh no, I am not a time denier. I am arguing that Change, no,
Becoming, is a Fundamental aspect of Existence and not Static
Being.
...Try this idea: We do NOT exist in a single space-time manifold.
That structure is a collective illusion - but still a reality-
that results from the
Stathis writes
I wasn't very clear in my last post. What I meant was this:
(a) A conscious program written in C is compiled on a computer. The C
instructions are converted into binary code, and when this code is run, the
program is self-aware.
(b) The same conscious program is written
Jesse writes
So again, is it enough to look at the natural laws of our universe in
order to decide whether the consciousnesses within it are real? Or do we
need more? Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 03:48:48PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
(c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a
programming language which, when a program is written in this language so
that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary
Stathis Papaioannou writes:
(c) A random string of binary code is run on a computer. There exists a
programming language which, when a program is written in this language so
that it is the same program as in (a) and (b), then compiled, the binary
code so produced is the same as this random
PROTECTED]
To: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 11:26:45 -0400
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this post! Interleaving...
- Original Message - From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED
Hi James;
I suspected that this part of my argument to Stephen would raise objections
from other members of this board.
'Actually, this is not correct; but a presumption of experiential
pre-bias.'
It may be. Nevertheless, without the experience to hand at all, I maintain
that the asymetry
Again travel has forced me to take an absence from this list for a while,
but I think I will be home for several weeks so hopefully I will be able
to catch up at last.
One question I would ask with regard to the role of time is, is there
something about time (and perhaps causality) that goes over
Hal Finney writes
Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist (in some
sense), where there is no actual causality?
You yourself have already provided the key example in imagining
a two dimensional CA where the second
Hal Finney wrote:
So again, is it enough to look at the natural laws of our universe in
order to decide whether the consciousnesses within it are real? Or do we
need more? Can we imagine a universe like ours, which follows exactly the
same natural laws, but where time doesn't really exist
-aware, then by definition *it*
knows.
--Stathis Papaioannou
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: The Time Deniers
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:42:49 -0700
Stathis writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But it is *precisely* that I cannot
Jesse Mazer wrote:
You might say that in the last example the states were causally
connected, while in the first they were not. But why should that make any
difference, especially to a solipsist?
If one believes in psychophysical laws (to use Chalmers' term) relating
3rd-person patterns of
Dear Bruno,
The duality that I am considering is that proposed by Vaughan Pratt. It
is NOT a substance dualism. It is more a process dualism. Please see the
ratmech paper for an explanaition. It is found here:
http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/ratmech.pdf
everything-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 13:37:05 -0400
Hi Pete,
- Original Message - From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM
Dear Chris,
Thank you for this post! Interleaving...
- Original Message -
From: chris peck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a dimension
Hi Stephen;
I
Lee Corbin writes:
But it is *precisely* that I cannot imagine how this stack of
Life gels could possibly be thinking or be conscious that forces
me to admit that something like time must play a role.
Here is why: let's suppose that your stack of Life boards does
represent each generation of
).
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming
Dear Hal,
Please forgive my delay in replying.
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive
Stathis writes
Lee Corbin writes:
But it is *precisely* that I cannot imagine how this stack of
Life gels could possibly be thinking or be conscious that forces
me to admit that something like time must play a role.
Here is why: let's suppose that your stack of Life boards does
.
- Original Message - From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try
On Jul 6, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:PC:But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary (or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?[SPK] Please notice that the identification of "time" with a "dimension" involves the identification with each moment in
Le 06-juil.-05, à 07:16, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:47:40PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
There have been many, many investigations of this idea. It may
not be an exaggeration to say that the main theme of this list
has been a pursuit of the idea. But Stephen Paul King
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Where I join you (in failing to understand) is what happens as
the OM becomes of zero length. I did not say *the limit as
it becomes zero*, I said zero. It's almost as though some
people take this as license to suppose that time is not a
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: Hal Ruhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Lee:
At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
snip
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try it this way:
1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the
All/Nothing system and must
@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
Hi Stephen:
At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,
Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
Stephen
Let me try it this way:
1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
2) The system
Russell writes
I find it amazing
that you claim I deny the existence of time. Au contraire, it is
something I explicitly assume. My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it).
Hi Lee,
To split a hair... ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: The Time Deniers
snip
I am still at the point where I cannot quite imagine how a
huge nest of bit strings (say all
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is a huge difference in kind between existing and
emulating. Existing is atemporal by definition since existence
can not depend on any other property. Emulations involve some
notion of a process and such are temporal. The
Hi Pete,
- Original Message -
From: Pete Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything-List everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
On Jul 6, 2005, at 9:08 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
There is a huge difference in kind
Pete writes
But isn't the use of time as the dimension along which things vary
(or are 'processed') a somewhat arbitrary choice?
I've wrote to the list before about a Game of Life simulation in
which, instead of running the states of the automaton forward in
time, erasing the
68 matches
Mail list logo