Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/1/9 Brent Meeker meeke...@dslextreme.com:
But in a block universe, where each frame contains all of the
information for a particular time, the order is implicit.
What makes it implicit?... increasing entropy? ...conformance to dynamical
laws
, at what speed, or in what order?
Is the observer conscious of a passage to time?
Yes,but of course it won't be real or external time of which he will
be conscious. In a block universe, there isn't necessarily any real or
external time. Whether you call the internal time of the simulation
kinds of physical machines, at what speed, or in what order?
Is the observer conscious of a passage to time?
Yes,but of course it won't be real or external time of which he will
be conscious. In a block universe, there isn't necessarily any real or
external time. Whether you call
computation) would no longer be implemented? What justification is
there for adding this requirement?
2 + 2 = 4 is true
4 + 2 = 2 is false
Order counts.
But in a block universe, where each frame contains all of the
information for a particular time, the order is implicit
and the computation (perhaps a conscious
computation) would no longer be implemented? What justification is
there for adding this requirement?
2 + 2 = 4 is true
4 + 2 = 2 is false
Order counts.
But in a block universe, where each frame contains all of the
information for a particular time
describing the
correspondence. Note that the diagonal makes to contradiction
appearing always in a finite time.
I insist on this diagonal because it is the main tool of the AUDA. A
very similar diagonal shows the existence of enumerable but non
recursively enumerable set of numbers, which have
2009/1/7 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
I would not deny causality in such a universe so long as the logical
structure enforces the Life rules (meaning, the next level in the
stack is *always* the next life-tick, it couldn't be something else...
which is true by supposition in the
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/1/7 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com wrote:
I would not deny causality in such a universe so long as the logical
structure enforces the Life rules (meaning, the next level in the
stack is *always* the next life-tick, it couldn't be something else...
which
On 06 Jan 2009, at 20:18, Brent Meeker wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com:
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we
experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past
here?
I will let you elaborate on this. But note that if my consciousness
here and now supervenes on past activity,
I will elaborate, but please give me time till February, before I will
not be able to work on this.
then the comp substitution
level has to be very low indeed.
Yes, very low
OK, and thanks Bruno. I thought MW more or less presumed a block
universe without time, but apparently this is yet uncertain.
Abram,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past
PS. If the two-dimensional cartoon man has something to say about
mathematics or logic, I would certainly listen, but his intuition,
common sense and and experienses I would rather smile at :)
Maybe somebody is smiling at me right now? or laughing? I hope not ;-)
- Original Message -
From: Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
We need only turing emulability, because quantum states,
although
Abram,
I agree with Brent. In relativity theory space and time are
intermingled in a geometrical way to give the Minkowski structure.
Actually you can make it into an Euclidian space by introducing an
imaginary time t' = sqr(-1)*t = it. The metrics becomes dx^2 + dy^2 +
dz^2 + dt'^2
2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com:
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past and not the future? Could a being move in some spatial
dimension in the same way we move
On 06 Jan 2009, at 14:07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com:
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past and not the future? Could a being
Abram,
With General Relativity, time is so geometrical that you can make it
circular.
(Cf the Gödel's solutions to Einstein's GR Equation, which gives hope
to some to build a time machine, and even infinite computers!).
Give me just a sufficiently massive cylinder ...
Bruno
On 06 Jan
as a magical requirement for you, though.
--Abram
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com:
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one
Bruno,
This I know... yet I want to say that it doesn't necessarily make time
*spatial*. But, I can't say exactly what that would mean. It seems to
me that the word spatial becomes less meaningful if time is said to
be spatial...
--Abram
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal marc
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
2009/1/6 Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.com:
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past and not the future? Could a being move in some spatial
dimension
Abram,
an intuition I have come to concerning time is the following (it is only
qualitative and may or may not be helpful in thinking about time):
From relativity theory we know that there is no universal now, and that
the invariant between two points in the physical universe is spacetime
Lewis Carroll Epstein says the reason we can't go faster than light is that we
can't go slower than light, c is our speed along the time axis.
Brent
Günther Greindl wrote:
Abram,
an intuition I have come to concerning time is the following (it is only
qualitative and may or may
PS. Of course space and time exist, even if only in consciousness, but
I guess you know what I mean :)
On Jan 5, 1:10 am, Thomas Laursen krimma...@gmail.com wrote:
I admit that consciousness is a bit special but what about time as
(nothing but) a space dimension? Do you agree on this? (put
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past and not the future? Could a being move in some spatial
dimension in the same way we move through time, and in doing so treat
time more like we
On 05 Jan 2009, at 01:10, Thomas Laursen wrote:
I admit that consciousness is a bit special but what about time as
(nothing but) a space dimension? Do you agree on this?
The physicist in me don't know. But he likes the universal equation of
the multiverse E = 0, in which physical time
of block universe. The comp doctor will have to be able to
manipulate time-lines. Remember that even deep, in the sense of
Bennett(*) , computer state, can be copied efficiently, so that when
you say that consciousness here and now could supervene on the past,
you will have to use not only a low
Hi Stephen,
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Nice post! Coments soon.
Thanks :-) Looking forward to the comments.
Speaking of Svozil's work, please see: Cristian S. Calude, Peter H.
Hertling and Karl Svozil, ``Embedding Quantum Universes in Classical Ones'',
Foundations of Physics 29(3),
Abram Demski wrote:
Thomas,
If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience
moving in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember
the past and not the future? Could a being move in some spatial
dimension in the same way we move through time, and in doing
Subject: Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
Hi Bruno,
first of all thanks for the long answer, and yes, it was very helpful.
You described the production of all reals with a very vivid imagery;
it
showed a glimpse of the vastness of the UD. And, I agree, _in
I admit that consciousness is a bit special but what about time as
(nothing but) a space dimension? Do you agree on this? (put aside
whether time/space is only in the mind, as you think, or really exist)
On Jan 3, 10:39 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I disagree, and your remark
, even consciousness of
time and space, is not something you can effectively relate to time
and space. Assuming comp you can relate it to fixed point of self-
observation and other logical (but non geometrical) things. Then
discourses made by conscious entities have themselves invariant
Hi Bruno,
first of all thanks for the long answer, and yes, it was very helpful.
You described the production of all reals with a very vivid imagery; it
showed a glimpse of the vastness of the UD. And, I agree, _in the limit_
there will be an infinite number of histories. So, as we have to
: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time
Hi Bruno,
first of all thanks for the long answer, and yes, it was very helpful.
You described the production of all reals with a very vivid imagery; it
showed a glimpse of the vastness
Ämne: Smolin's View of Time
Edge Question 2009: What Will Change Everything?
http://www.edge.org/q2009/q09_9.html#smolin
What do we think about this? Smolin seems to disagree with most of
what we are on about on this list. My mind remains open in all
directions, particularly as Smolin
On 31 Dec 2008, at 23:53, Brent Meeker wrote:
The present moment in quantum cosmology: challenges to the arguments
for the elimination of time
Authors: Lee Smolin
(Submitted on 29 Apr 2001)
Abstract: Barbour, Hawking, Misner and others have argued that time
cannot play an essential
iteratively in two rooms, one with the number zero
written on the wall, the other with the number one on the wall. OK?
And during that time you make the computation (to please your boss).
So you compute P, get the first step of the computation: P^1, go to my
duplicator (where you are scanned
If I understand the standard MWI right (with my layman brain) Abram
Demski's view of time is very much in accordance with it, except that
time should be looked at simply as a fourth space dimension. A bird's
eye view on the whole universe (= all it's actualized worlds) would
be like a static
2009/1/1 Hal Finney h...@finney.org:
I want to emphasize that this picture of how Boltzmann fluctuations would
work is a consquence of the laws of thermodynamics, and time symmetry.
Sometimes people imagine that the fluctuation into the Boltzmann
low-entropy state is fundamentally different
readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of
Boltzmann
on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be
time
symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann
proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a
uniform
are
implemented by a particular Boltzmann brain is null, as it is null for
any particular. With the comp supervenience you have to attach
consciousness on ALL the histories going through your computational
state. It is a sort of double cone of histories.
Are you assuming time
of histories.
Are you assuming time as fundamental here? If time is merely
inferred then it
seems that states of Bbs could fit into the inferred time sequence
as well as
states that arose in some other way.
I assume only the sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... or the axioms of
Robinson arithmetic
Hal,
I have entertained quite similar musings some time ago, and this led me
to a position I called naive materialism NMAT some time ago on this
list - that causality does not matter, and consciousness would supervene
on the material states directly - and both backward and forward versions
Bruno,
I have also wanted to ask how you come to 2^aleph_zero
Well, in part this results from the unbounded dumbness of the
universal doevtailing procedure which dovetails on all programs but
also on all non interacting collection of programs (as all interacting
one).
How do you
substantial
advances in his field of Quantum Gravitation. Does his argument about
time have legs?
Maybe we can get him back on this list to talk to us if we yell loud
enough in his direction...
regards,
Kim
LEE SMOLIN
Physicist, Perimeter Institute; Author, The Trouble With Physics
, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of Boltzmann
on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be time
symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann
proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a
uniform gas, then given enough time, the gas
readers are aware, Boltzmann Brains relate to an idea of Boltzmann
on how to explain the arrow of time. The laws of physics seem to be time
symmetric, yet the universe is grossly asymmetric in time. Boltzmann
proposed that if you had a universe in a maximum entropy state, say a
uniform gas
Hi Kim,
On 25 Dec 2008, at 06:21, Kim Jones wrote:
A bit of an end-of-year ramble. For the multi-lingual, illogically-
minded, lateral thinkers:
My last post was a bit self-destructive ramble as I am able to do once
a time. But that's ok. (I hope I am not shocking).
It is rather kind
the electrical impulses read in a brain system (NewScientist last
ed.)
Perhaps it is not too far from here to the thought that you and I
might swap instantiations for a short time? Maybe it would be fun to
think, walk, talk and act like Bruno Marchal, if only for 5 minutes.
In fact, I would pay
like a regression. To hide the first person data, you have to
change the language. You are very coherent (as time-skeptic). OK.
It is also a pity to think that you will die the time I finish this
sentence. You think now you have survived that reading, but you
did'nt, you are the copy
might swap instantiations for a short time? Maybe it would be fun to
think, walk, talk and act like Bruno Marchal, if only for 5 minutes.
In fact, I would pay a princely sum to have that experience. In an age
when some people will spend gazillions on a space tourist (virtual)
reality
too, so let us continue the
UDA reasoning, by altruism for *all* our descendants and why not the
many others descendant to:)
It is also a pity to think that you will die the time I finish this
sentence. You think now you have survived that reading, but you
did'nt, you are the copy
, so we will drink coffee (with we referring
to many moment-selves). Or, perhaps, Abram loves coffee, so Abram
will drink coffee (no identification of a self, only of an identity).
It is also a pity to think that you will die the time I finish this
sentence. You think now you have survived
an interval of time? With each moment we can associate a
definite physical state. With an interval, we could associate an
average... this average could be taken as basic, constraining
sub-intervals so that their averages (weighted by length) must equal
the total. But that seems quite strange... of course
that a coherent theory of the probability of future events is
needed (otherwise the passing of time could be white noise), but I do
not see where such probabilities could come out of more basic
assumptions.
UDA is a non constructive proof that in the MEC theory, we have to
derive
among the innumerable others
(we cannot even 'see' them) in the interpretation of our individual
(personalized) mindset, our personal mini-solipsism (Colin) controlled by
the tissue-tool (brain) we use.
2. According to 1.: are you sure that in the unrestricted World the 'time'
concept is as we
Bruno,
Interesting thought experiment. My initial reaction (from my time
skeptic position):
--Since my consciousness is relative to a single moment, I can't talk
about that same consciousness being carried over to the next moment:
the consciousness in the next moment is a different
to derive a first person notion of
time or a flow of events.
You put the horses at the wrong place. First, if we accept the axiom
of choice in set theory, I can well-order the reals and the complex
numbers. Of course (for the mathematicians) there is no ordering of
the complex numbers which
to understand time already, which is what is being
questioned here... What does it mean for a prediction to be more or
less reasonable, if all possible futures in fact occur? How does it
help me to take the past experimental frequencies, if I know (or at
least believe) that all alternatives will take
to
predict, I need to understand time already, which is what is being
questioned here... What does it mean for a prediction to be more or
less reasonable, if all possible futures in fact occur? How does it
help me to take the past experimental frequencies, if I know (or at
least believe
Brent,
I'm not sure how the comment about real numbers effects my basic
argument. One interesting objection I got from someone not on this
list was that time isn't composed of moments at all, only intervals--
a moment is an imaginary thing that we get by considering
arbitrarily small intervals
that I did not send correctly
the first time.]
Bruno, everyone,
I've decided that it will be more productive/entertaining to post my
various concerns as a new topic.
What is time?
Third person sharable time could be an illusion. It seems to me that
QM + General Relativity could lead
Hi Bruno and Friends,
I have some comments and questions interleaved below.
- Original Message -
From: Bruno Marchal
To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Time
Hi Abram,
I agree mostly with Brent's reply. Other
Bruno,
From what assumptions could a probability ultimately be derived? It
seems that a coherent theory of the probability of future events is
needed (otherwise the passing of time could be white noise), but I do
not see where such probabilities could come out of more basic
assumptions
Abram Demski wrote:
Brent,
I'm not sure how the comment about real numbers effects my basic
argument. One interesting objection I got from someone not on this
list was that time isn't composed of moments at all, only intervals--
a moment is an imaginary thing that we get by considering
[Sorry if this is a duplicate, I think that I did not send correctly
the first time.]
Bruno, everyone,
I've decided that it will be more productive/entertaining to post my
various concerns as a new topic.
What is time?
I'm going to ask a bunch of questions; for the sake of brevity, I'm
going
What is time?
About 7pm EDT, here.
(Sorry...haven't had the time to read my flagged posts yet and offer real
responses.)
Anna
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post
Abram Demski wrote:
[Sorry if this is a duplicate, I think that I did not send correctly
the first time.]
Bruno, everyone,
I've decided that it will be more productive/entertaining to post my
various concerns as a new topic.
What is time?
Time is what you read on a clock.
I'm going
for. The Umbral calculus seems to be a good candidate
for a tool for handling discrete space-time!
--
Torgny Tholerus
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group
for a tool for handling discrete space-time!
Great! I'm glad it helped.
Jason
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED
Torgny Tholerus skrev:
What I want to know is what result you will get if you start from the
axiom that *everything in universe is finite*.
One important function in Quantum Theory is the harmonic oscillator. So
I want to know: What is the corresponding function in discrete
for a period.
Meanwhile I will ask one of my student, who has a craving for discrete
math, to take a look on your finite calculus, and he will contact you
in case he find it interesting. Sorry but I have not so much time
those days.
Best,
Bruno
For this you will need a function calculus
?
This time you will get:
D(A*B) = A*D(B) + D(A)*B + D(A)*D(B), ie the extended Leibniz rule. The
extra term then comes from the two small squares you get where the two
borders cross each other. (Do draw this figure om the paper before you,
and you will understand.)
This picture
...
Bruno
Le 12-nov.-08, à 18:44, Torgny Tholerus a écrit :
When you are going to do exact mathematical computations for the
discrete space-time, then the continuous mathematics is not enough,
because then you will only get an approximation of the reality. So
there is a need for developing
Bruno Marchal skrev:
I have to think. I think that to retrieve a Leibniz rule in discrete
mathematics, you have to introduce an operator and some non
commutativity rule. This can be already found in the book by Knuth on
numerical mathematics. This has been exploited by Kauffman and one of
When you are going to do exact mathematical computations for the
discrete space-time, then the continuous mathematics is not enough,
because then you will only get an approximation of the reality. So
there is a need for developing a special calculus for a discrete
mathematics.
One
Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Max Tegmark had a paper recently ... I could not find the paper ...
Could possibly be arXiv:0704.0646v2
But the use of his CUH in advance of a detailed consideration of what
people (but not necessarily computers) think, tends to be putting the
cart before
for the universe in form of a 4D - even 'math' -
structure to satisfy our human limitations in our presently achieved figment
of scientific understanding..
*
Stathis has interesting words on 'time(s)' .
He also asked:
Hm, sounds good, but is that true?
(Never mind: what) - everybody has HIS own truth
structure,...
or would we rather say:
if we use a simulation for the universe in form of a 4D - even 'math' -
structure to satisfy our human limitations in our presently achieved figment
of scientific understanding..
*
Stathis has interesting words on 'time(s)' .
He also asked:
Hm, sounds good
,...
or would we rather say:
if we use a simulation for the universe in form of a 4D - even 'math'
- structure to satisfy our human limitations in our presently achieved
figment of scientific understanding..
*
Stathis has interesting words on 'time(s)' .
He also asked:
Hm, sounds good, but is that true?
(Never
).
*
Time I consider a coordinative help for us in THIS universe (I don't know
about the others) but to make 'a' universe-startup more palatable for our
human common sense than the Q-related Big Bang tale, I ended up in my
narrative with a not knowable origin (I called it 'Plenitude'
-plagierizing
concepts handled in the 'physical world' science-view).
*
Time I consider a coordinative help for us in THIS universe (I don't know
about the others) but to make 'a' universe-startup more palatable for our
human common sense than the Q-related Big Bang tale, I ended up in my
narrative
to speak about
concepts handled in the 'physical world' science-view).
*
Time I consider a coordinative help for us in THIS universe (I don't know
about the others) but to make 'a' universe-startup more palatable for our
human common sense than the Q-related Big Bang tale, I ended up in my
John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
I try to point to some other aspect.
Free will is a figment of the religious etc. mindset to help people
get into remorse and guilt feelings according to the tenets of the
particular religion (patriotic, ethnic, racial, loyalty etc. domains).
A reasonable
') which would inevitably lead to parallel natures and
make the 'physical laws' meaningless.
(I appologize for swinging between views, 'uv' seems to speak about
concepts handled in the 'physical world' science-view).
*
Time I consider a coordinative help for us in THIS universe
into the internal (and our
biological neural nets) at the corresponding point in time.
Are we in some logical way an optimal expression of ourselves?
If so, it would seem we have free will at least in the sense of not
being predictable.
Rich
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
2008/9/10 Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Uv,
One of the concerns people have with free will or the lack thereof is that
if physics is deterministic, one's future actions can predicted beforehand,
without them even having to exist. However, an interesting consequence of
computationalism is
on these other issues for the purposes of this thought experiment by saying
there exists a simulated mind and environment together inside a computer and
both the mind and environment evolve according to deterministic rules which
can be computed in finite time.
Within that situation, it is clear
can be computed in finite time.
Within that situation, it is clear that there is no way to leap to future
states of the system other than having the computer compute each
intermediate step, skipping or abridging finer details of the system
(environment or the mind) will lead to ever growing
, because I am unsure
how we can know anything about the direction in which this presumed
computation is occurring relative to our experience of time. We all
know that the fundamental laws of physics are time reversible. How can
someone living in the universe tell which direction the underlying
reasoning is also becoming more and
more the norm.
I have tried to update matters as far as possible in a paper available
at Yates J., (2008).Category theory applied to a radically new but
logically essential description of time and space, Philica.com,
Article number 135, and in PDF format
Hi John,
Le 07-janv.-08, à 18:12, John Mikes wrote (to Hal Ruhl)
Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology
dating back into my pre-Everythinglist times, that started something
like:
...In
the realization that
our universe is not simply becoming disordered, our universe is not
dying, rather time evolves away from one kind of order (the ultimate
grouping of all positive apart from all negative, with each having
high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
asymmetry
of
compatible states for a Something each containing more information
than the last - that is the imposition of time.
A natural impetus built into the timeless reality.
Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to
minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.
INdeed
a certain preconception of what a number is; or at
least develop a conception which one must not naturally share.
high symmetry internally while relative to zero they are perfect
asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
(unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually
the universe
expands and ultimate ends as a perfectly flat space extending
infinitely in all directions (perfect symmetry).
The most dramatic consequence of all this being the realization that
our universe is not simply becoming disordered, our universe is not
dying, rather time evolves away from
to a starting point what most theories shove under the
rug, mostly as some meaningless free concept to start a hazy process
(thinking of Q-science) - and at 'that' time I did not accept it. I
was 2 decades younger.
so I started with nothingness - and elevated it into our worldview.
As a later phase I
Hi John:
At 04:01 PM 1/8/2008, you wrote:
Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
'meaning' of texts):
HR:
... What I indicated was all paths to completion.
JM:
does anything like 'completion' make
asymmetry) and time evolves towards a whole other kind of order
(unity, balance, perfect symmetry) which is actually the infinite
I suppose you do not mean the heat death of the universe. But what would
perfect symmetry be but heat death?
Good, yes I DO mean the heat death of the universe
Hi, Hal: - Hopefully without risking strawmanship, a further remark
on our humanly limited language (however infiltrating into the
'meaning' of texts):
HR:
... What I indicated was all paths to completion.
JM:
does anything like 'completion' make sense in speaking about an
unlimited totality?
of an ordered sequence of
compatible states for a Something each containing more information
than the last - that is the imposition of time.
Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to
minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.
The Everything contains enough Nothings
501 - 600 of 772 matches
Mail list logo
