Peter Jones writes: > > > > But the important point is that the temporal sequence does not itself > > > > make a difference > > > > to subjective experience. > > > > > > We don't actually know that it is possible that > > > there might be some flicker effect. > > > > Not necessarily. I'm suggesting that the actual physical events are > > *exactly* the same, > > just their order is different. If the world were created 5 minutes ago, > > complete with > > fossils, ruins, false memories etc., you could not be aware of this on the > > basis of any > > observation - by definition, otherwise the illusion would not be perfect. > > This is of course > > no reason to believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago; but it does > > mean that > > the absence of a sensation of having just flickered into existence is no > > evidence *against* > > this theory. > > My original point stands. There is no evidence *for* the theory. If > the present > state is determined by more than a 0-width time slice preceding it, > then > a physical process cannot be arbitrarily sliced up.
Your original point was that the continuous flow of consciousness is evidence against a block universe. It is not, whether the time slices are of finite or infinitesimal duration. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence either: are you suggesting that time is quantised rather than continuous, and if so how is that evidence against a block universe? > Computationalism does not help, because computationalism requries > counterfactuals. I don't see why it does, or why it makes any difference to the present question if it does. > > > > Would you say that it is in theory possible for the subjective > > > > passage of time to be as we know it if the blocks were not > > > > infinitesimal, but lasted for > > > > a second, so that the whole ensemble of blocks lasted for a second? > > > > > > There is still duration within blocks > > > > Yes, and... > > > > > > Then what if you > > > > make the blocks shorter in duration and larger in number, progressively > > > > down to > > > > infinitely many blocks of infinitesimal duration: is there room for > > > > dynamism in an > > > > infenitesimal interval? > > > > > > There are such things as infintiessimal velocities... > > > > So if there is room for movement in infinitesimal intervals (or through > > combination of > > infinitesimal intervals) in a linear theory of time, why not with a block > > universe? > > A block universe with movement is just as dynamic universe > (specifically, > a growing universe). The effect of movement would be the same in a block universe as in a linear universe. If time is discrete then in a linear universe movement is the result of a series of static frames of finite duration, like the frames in a film. If time is continuous then in a linear universe movement is the result of a series of static frames of infinitesimal duration. There is no room for movement within a frame in either case - that is what defines it as a frame - but the series of frames creates the effect of movement. Stathis Papaioannou _________________________________________________________________ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
