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 disappear globally.
The computationalist does not even know if there is space .... I got
just the shadow of the shadows of braids and perhaps knots. I dream
about a rich quantum universal topology.
> (put aside
> whether time/space is only in the mind, as you think, or really exist)
Some things which are only in the mind could really exist, once you
accept that mind exists.
All I say is that if MEC is true (in the coginitive science, or in
theology ...) then those things (space, time, energy) emerge from what
numbers can tell about numbers. I will be able to say more if I get to
the AUDA (the Arithmetical version of the UDA) where things are more
precise.
I am not suggesting a new physics, I just make a point in "theology":
if we are machine, the theory of matter will be a modality on
arithmetic. A numbers' view of numbers, and numbers' sequences, well
everything representable in Robinson arithmetic, or by a universal (in
the sense of Church Turing) immaterial (number-theoretical) machine.
Bruno
>
>
>
> On Jan 3, 10:39 am, Bruno Marchal <marc....domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>> I disagree, and your remark singles out the problem with the bird's
>> eye/frog view of Tegmark. Those two views remains "third person point
>> of views". Consciousness is intrinsically a first person view. You
>> cannot describe it in any third person point of view. This explains
>> why the Aristotelians want so much eliminate consciousness.
>> But you are right for memories and the the possible discourse *about*
>> consciousness, this can be compared to marks on some block-structure.
>> Consciousness itself will be more a "distributed" logical feature in
>> the whole of the block reality. Consciousness, 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
>> pattern, like "we cannot define it", "we cannot explain it " that you
>> can (with luck) recognize in the (more geometrical) marks.
>>
>> Bruno Marchal
>>
>> On 03 Jan 2009, at 06:46, Thomas Laursen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> 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 picture where, lets say, the beginning (big bang)
>>> is
>>> at the left side (or right if you're Chinese), the present in the
>>> middle, and the future at the right. Of course this (2-dimensional)
>>> picture is extremely simplified but the idea behind is true (if I
>>> understand Everett and others, mainly Deutsch and Tegmark in their
>>> popular papers, right). Memory is then nothing but "marks" in the
>>> brain, and consciousness just like other moving things in nature
>>> with
>>> a (relatively) stable structure (a body, river, plant, etc), only
>>> more
>>> complex.
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
> >
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Mon Jan 05 2009 - 14:06:52 PST