At 09:19 25/02/04 +1100, Russell Standish wrote:
>I think that "psychological time" fits the bill. The observer needs a
>a temporal dimension in which to appreciate differences between
>states.
OK. That move makes coherent your attempt to derive physics,
and makes it even compatible with the sort of approach I advocate,
but then: would you agree that you should define or at least
explain what is the "psychological time". More generally:
What is your psychology or your theory of mind? This is (imo)
unclear in your Occam Paper (or I miss something).
I find that assuming time, and the applicability of differential
equation (especially with respect to a psychological time)
is quite huge.
Bruno
>"Physical time" presupposes a physics, which I haven't done in
>"Occam".
>
>It is obviously a little more structured than an ordering. A space
>dimension is insufficient for an observer to appreciate differences,
>isn't it?
>
> Cheers
>
>On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 02:11:07PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > Let me try to be a little more specific. You say in your Occam paper
> > at http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks/docs/occam/node4.html
> >
> > "The first assumption to be made is that observers will find themselves
> > embedded in a temporal dimension. A Turing machine requires time to
> > separate the sequence of states it occupies as it performs a computation.
> > Universal Turing machines are models of how humans compute things, so
> it is
> > possible that all conscious observers are capable of universal
> computation.
> > Yet for our present purposes, it is not necessary to assume observers are
> > capable of universal computation, merely that observers are embedded in
> > time. "
> >
> > Are you meaning physical time, psychological time, or just a (linear)
> > order? I am just
> > trying to have a better understanding.
Received on Fri Feb 27 2004 - 08:56:34 PST