> Colin Hales wrote:
>
> > 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the
> present.
>
> Just a couple of questions for the moment Colin, until I've a little
> more time. Actually, that's precisely what it's about - 'time'. Just
> how thin is this slice of yours? And is it important whether we
> conceive it as Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don't time, or does it work in
> 'block' time? This may be a maths vs. 'primitive' EC issue. Anyway, if
> NYSINYD, what is the status of the 'thens'? That is, if nothing but a
> wafer-thin 'now' is actual, how does this effect process-structure at
> the macro-level, which we encounter as Vast ensembles of events? Does
> reality work as just the flimsiest meniscus? This is presumably not a
> problem in a block version.
>
> Also, what about STR with respect to 'now' and the present?
>
> But perhaps I'm jumping the gun.
>
> David
>
Jump away! I'm letting EC 'rules of formation' ferment at the moment....
Preamble... the mental secret to EC is to attend to one of my all time
faves: Leibniz. His approach has always born fruit in my analyses. What he
was on about, translated into modern jargon, was that brain operation is a
literal metaphor for the deep structure of matter. Brain operation is a
whole bunch of nested resonating loops. I have observed in general and found
the same pattern in a lot of things - trees, clouds... and most wonderfully
in the boiling froth... rice is best. :-)
Time.
It's important to distinguish between the mental perception of it and the
reality of it.
* TIME PERCEIVED
There is a neurological condition (name escapes me) where the visual field
is updated on mass as usual but at a repetition rate much lower than usual.
Try pouring a glass of wine.... you see the glass at one instant and the
next time you see it: overfull. Try crossing a road. A car is 200m away...
you walk and bang, it's 10m away. All throughout this, EC state changes have
been running normally.
In a normally operating brain in the face of novelty, where more brain
regions are involved as a result of dealing with the novelty (such as when
traveling in a new area), more energy is recruited, more brain regions are
active and the cognitive update rate is increased. Time feels like its going
slower. All throughout this, EC state changes have been running normally.
* TIME REALITY - according to EC
Time is virtual. There is only EC proof and its current state. The best way
of imaging it is to think of it as a nested structure of "nearest neighbour
interactions" according to a local 'energy' optimization rule. 'Energy' is a
metric counting how many ()s there are in a given structure and how many it
can do without and still remain the same 'thing'. () () could go to (()())
or vice versa. It doesn't matter. Overall it's a one way trip (door slams
behind you) depending on what 'nearest neighbour' situation results from the
present 'nearest neighbour' situation. Locally there can be lossless EC
transformations. Globally the net result is dissipation back to primitive ()
(and then to its constituents (noise). There is no future, only next state.
It looks like 2nd law of thermodynamics from within it.
By traveling fast through the EC string (like a wave through water) the
faster you go compared to the refresh rate of EC-you by the () structure
that is you, your structural state-evolution will proceed at a lower rate
than other pieces of the EC string. EC 'you' (organisation only) is moving,
but your structure is merely being replicated within the EC string, not
moving at all. If we have had a previous metaphor for the EC string I'd call
it what was once called 'the ether'. Although it's not 'real' in the sense
that it was once thought - just a concept - a way of viewing the EC string.
When you are in EC it looks like more relative speed (compared your local EC
string), time goes slower. Traveling faster than the speed of light is
meaningless EC can't 'construct/refresh' you beyond the rate it's () operate
at. There's nothing to travel in anything and nothing to travel. It's
meaningless.
In deep 'time' (many more state changes in the proof beyond 'now') EC
predicts (I think) the equivalent of approaching the speed of light, only
not through moving fast, but by dissipation of the fabric of space/matter
(there is no time). To be alive then (see how our words are troublesome?)
would feel the same. But if you compared the rate of progress of EC would be
different. An EC aging process of the time it takes to write WORD in the
year 10^^25 could be our equivalent of 3 months of current EC state
evolution. It's the same effect as that got by going really fast.
When you are inside EC and local structure evolves in an organised way and
achieves regularity it means an abstraction of an EC structure can have a t
in it. Unfortunately..then we get distracted by the t possibly being
negative and >> now and start talking as if time was real and the
abstraction was more than an abstraction.
Working in EC is very different because of the nature of its predictions. It
predicts a thing that behaves like what we see. Gravity, QM, space, cells,
atoms etc. So when you call for evidence you've sort of got it already. At
the same time any particular EC is very refutable because it only has to
mis-predict once and it's out. Take your EC proposition back to the drawing
board and rework it. I'm only really interested in the aspects of EC as
applied to perception and brain material: the relevance of Church's work in
paramount in that regard. I don't have to have the exact EC we inhabit
worked out - the basic principles apply to the whole class of possible
calculi.
Does this make sense?
That's what EC tells me/predicts.
Colin Hales.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mon Oct 23 2006 - 23:26:35 PDT