Re: The Time Deniers

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 12:08:01 -0400

Hi Lee,

    To split a hair... ;-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee Corbin" <lcorbin.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 9:47 PM
Subject: The Time Deniers


snip
> I am still at the point where I cannot quite imagine how a
> huge nest of bit strings (say all the real numbers between
> 0 and 1) manages to (in stasis) emulate all possible
> conscious experiences of all possible entities. But I
> still have an open mind.

    I don't have a problem with that statement given that "in principle":

1) There is at least one Real number that is Identical to the bitstring (of
an algorithm) that IF implemented would render a simulation that is
Identical to some particular conscious experience.

2) All possible conscious experiences have a simulating/emulating/rendering
algorithm that is isomorphic to some Real number.


    I do have a problem with the Time Deniers in that I find their
postulation that the mere ab initio existence of the Real Numbers, ala
Mathematical Platonism, is sufficient to necessitate the unassailable fact
(1st person for me - incorrigibility!) that I am having a conscious
experience of typing these words on my computer.

    There is a huge difference in kind between "existing" and "emulating".
Existing is atemporal by definition since existence can not depend on any
other property. Emulations involve some notion of a process and such are
temporal. The idea that a process, of any kind, can "occur" requires some
measure of both transitivity and duration.
    The mere *existence* of a process only speaks to its potential for
occurrence.

Kindest regards,

Stephen
Received on Wed Jul 06 2005 - 12:10:22 PDT