Hi Pete:

At 11:39 PM 12/17/2004, you wrote:
As usual when I ask a question like this, if the answer is available in a text on logic or elsewhere, please just tell me where to look.

..I'm also interested in the implicit use of time, or sequence, in many of the ideas discussed here.

For instance you might say that some of your Somethings are 'bitstrings' that could make up one of Bruno's or Jürgen's worlds/observers. Part of our idea of a string is the convention that one element comes first, then the second, then the third, et cetera.
However, the information that accounts for that convention is not contained in the string itself. 'Taking' a Something as a bitstring involves some degree of external convention.

One could argue that the rules for decoding a string are in the string itself. So a given string would represent all structures that are such a parsing of the string.

So my question is, what do you mean when you say "a universe that has a sequence of successive states that follow a set of fixed rules?" What could make one state "give rise" to the "next" state?

The rules contained in the string read the string and generate the next string. In my view this can cause problems [or point to explanations] re accumulating algorithmic complexity.

Citing "causality" just gives a name the problem; it doesn't explain it. And I don't think introducing a Turing machine helps with this basic problem, since in any automaton you have rules that say e.g. state X at time T begets state Y at time T+1, again placing a convention of sequence (time, here) external to the system itself.

Yes a dynamic [why that], and who ordered the computer [residual information] in the first place.

I try to give a base for a dynamic and allow that some sequences could look computer generated but there seems to me to be a need [as payment for the dynamic] to also allow input to the computer that is inconsistent with any of its prior states. I think Bruno might call it a little third person indeterminacy if I sufficiently remember and understand his material.


Reply via email to