On 3/22/07, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> John M wrote:
> > Stathis and Brent:
> >
> > ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
> > Would it not make sense to write instead of
> > "we are" (thing-wise) -
> > the term less static, rather process-wise:
> > "We do" (in whatever action)?
> >
> > John M
>
> That's part of what I'm struggling with. ISTM that OMs, being static, may
> leave out something essential to consciousness. But this conflicts with the
> idea of simulations in which all process rates are encoded statically as
> state values. I think however this misses the point that a simulation must
> be *run* and that when it is run the computer provides the "rate", i.e.
> the clock.
As Quentin said, the computer clock rate cannot be determined from within
the simulation. Also, as far as I am aware no-one has been able to come up
with a method for distinguishing between block universe time and linear
time, as in a block universe static slices give rise to the effect (or
illusion) of linear time.
Stathis Papaioannou
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Wed Mar 21 2007 - 19:38:25 PDT