Peter Jones writes:
> > > > But the important point is that the temporal sequence does not itself make a difference
> > > > to subjective experience.
> > >
> > > We don't actually know that it is possible that
> > > there might be some flicker effect.
> >
> > Not necessarily. I'm suggesting that the actual physical events are *exactly* the same,
> > just their order is different. If the world were created 5 minutes ago, complete with
> > fossils, ruins, false memories etc., you could not be aware of this on the basis of any
> > observation - by definition, otherwise the illusion would not be perfect. This is of course
> > no reason to believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago; but it does mean that
> > the absence of a sensation of having just flickered into existence is no evidence *against*
> > this theory.
>
> My original point stands. There is no evidence *for* the theory. If
> the present
> state is determined by more than a 0-width time slice preceding it,
> then
> a physical process cannot be arbitrarily sliced up.
Your original point was that the continuous flow of consciousness is evidence against a block
universe. It is not, whether the time slices are of finite or infinitesimal duration. I'm not sure
what you mean by the last sentence either: are you suggesting that time is quantised rather
than continuous, and if so how is that evidence against a block universe?
> Computationalism does not help, because computationalism requries
> counterfactuals.
I don't see why it does, or why it makes any difference to the present question if it does.
> > > > Would you say that it is in theory possible for the subjective
> > > > passage of time to be as we know it if the blocks were not infinitesimal, but lasted for
> > > > a second, so that the whole ensemble of blocks lasted for a second?
> > >
> > > There is still duration within blocks
> >
> > Yes, and...
> >
> > > > Then what if you
> > > > make the blocks shorter in duration and larger in number, progressively down to
> > > > infinitely many blocks of infinitesimal duration: is there room for dynamism in an
> > > > infenitesimal interval?
> > >
> > > There are such things as infintiessimal velocities...
> >
> > So if there is room for movement in infinitesimal intervals (or through combination of
> > infinitesimal intervals) in a linear theory of time, why not with a block universe?
>
> A block universe with movement is just as dynamic universe
> (specifically,
> a growing universe).
The effect of movement would be the same in a block universe as in a linear universe. If time
is discrete then in a linear universe movement is the result of a series of static frames of finite
duration, like the frames in a film. If time is continuous then in a linear universe movement is the
result of a series of static frames of infinitesimal duration. There is no room for movement within
a frame in either case - that is what defines it as a frame - but the series of frames creates the
effect of movement.
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Aug 19 2006 - 00:22:07 PDT