On 3/22/07, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto: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.
>
> I'm well aware of that - I've written a lot of simulations, ODE, PDE, and
> stochastic. But ISTM that if I look at what a computer is doing in running
> a simulation, its state is defined by a lot of variable values and functions
> that computer the rate-of-change of those variables - not just the
> values. When it runs, the integration routine uses the functions to
> generate new values. I'm not insisting on the computer hardware here - it
> applies equally to an abstract computation in Platonia. It take the states
> to correspond to OMs. But the states are not standing in isolation with no
> relation. They are related by the integrator. The integrator may be
> thought of as simulator of time. If it is part of an OM then and OM
> includes rates and an arrow of time that, togther, point to the next OM. If
> it is not part of the OM, then OMs alone are not sufficient to construct
> consciousness. At least that's what I think part of the time ;-)
I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to the fact that a real
computer does not instantaneously jump from one state to the other, but goes
through a process, i.e. a finite current flows when a "1" turns into a "0"?
These transitional states are ignored as an irrelevant hardware detail when
considering abstract machines.
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 Thu Mar 22 2007 - 02:20:00 PDT