Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 16:37:00 -0400

Dear Hal,

    No, I disagree. The mere a priori existence of bit strings is not enough
to imply necessity that what we experience 1st person view points. At best
it allows the possibility that the bit strings could be implemented. You see
the problem is that it is impossible to derive Change or "Becoming" from
Being. Think of this in terms of thermodynamics, if we assume a universe
that is in perfect equilibrium there will never be any possibility of a
deviation from such equilibrium unless we introduce some mechanism to
"disturb" it. If we use the mechanism of a "quantum fluctuation" then we are
forced to introduce some kind of "potential to change" into a structure that
by definition has none.
    This has long been a problem for thinkers trying to understand the
notion of Time. Unless we assume some form of change or Becoming as existing
a priori to time and that out notion of Time is a "local" measure of change,
we are forced to construct ideas where we ask questions like how fast is a
second. We end up with a Time_ 1 to measure the rate of change that is
somehow different from the usual time (Time_0) and this, in turn, would have
to have a Time_2 and thus a Time_3, etc.- an infinite number of times, each
to measure the rate of change of the one below it.

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: ""Hal Finney"" <hal.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: Everything Physical is Based on Consciousness


> Stephen Paul King writes:
>> I think that your characterization would be accurate if you could
>> somehow substitute each and every verb, such as "generate", "execute",
>> "compare", "detect", "create", which depend on some form of transitional
>> temporality with nouns that have a non-temporal connotation, after all
>> all
>> of this computational structure is postulated to exist in a TIMELESS
>> Platonic realm where any notion of temporality and change is
>> non-existent.
>
> That's a good point. Another way to think of it is that all bit strings
> exist, timelessly; and some of them implicitly specify computer programs;
> and some of those computer programs would create universes with observers
> just like us in them. You don't necessarily need the machinery of
> the computer to run the program, it could be that the existence of the
> program itself is sufficient for what we think of as reality.
>
> Then the same argument applies: each computer program is actually only
> a finite length; and a computer program of n bits is a prefix of 1/2^n
> of the bit strings; hence it is reasonable to say that such a program
> has a measure of 1/2^n. Then we can argue that our own universe is a
> relatively small program (Wolfram estimates about 2000 bits) and so it
> is not all that unlikely that we observe such a universe.
>
> So, in this sense, the Platonic existence of bit strings is enough to
> explain our experience of the world.
>
> Hal Finney
>
Received on Fri May 06 2005 - 16:40:57 PDT