From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:01:36 -0700

No fair using time in your definition of time.

Brent Meeker

On 04-Mar-01, Saibal Mitra wrote:
> Since conventional physics is sufficient to give (at least in
> principle) a complete description of the human brain, a partial
> ordering on the set of all possible observer moments S can be defined
> as follows:
> First we choose an arbitrary brain B.
> If x1 and x2 are elements of S, then x1 < x2 iff both x1 and x2 can
> be experienced by B and an initial condition specifying the entire
> state of the (conventional) universe including that of B exists such
> that x1 is experienced by B at some time t1 and x2 is experienced at
> some time t2 and t1 < t2.
> On any totally ordered subset of S one thus also has a definition of
> time. So, even if one believes that nothing but OM's exists, one can
> still define useful concepts on S.
> Saibal
Received on Sun Mar 04 2001 - 15:08:24 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST