Le 29-avr.-05, à 00:41, Russell Standish a écrit :

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 04:00:10PM -0400, John M wrote:Jesse, thanks for the explanation you gave to Norman. I did not want to ask

something similar, so I benefit from it as well.

My question however is a more fundamental one:

why are we stuck in a MWI or its infinitely expanded format, where qualia,

systems, functions, ideation, whatever are unrestricted and maybe quite

different from ours here, CORNERED into a time-concept of this (our) feeble

little universe?

Same to all principles expresed amply about dimensions, comp, space,

Q-considerations, even reality and ourselves?

The reason for TIME is the need for a dimension in which to make comparisons, to measure differences. Computationalism (Bruno's working hypothesis implicitly assumes TIME).

If by TIME you mean the axiom in arithmetic saying that each natural number has a successor then I agree.

If by TIME you mean anything related to geometry, or real numbers, or physics, or psychology then I disagree.

If by TIME you mean the axiom in arithmetic saying that each natural number has a successor then I agree.

If by TIME you mean anything related to geometry, or real numbers, or physics, or psychology then I disagree.

With TIME, the Anthropic Principle and PROJECTION (or equivalently Evolution or Bostrom's SSA), the quantum Multiverse is the only place observers can live. Apparently Bruno gets a similar result from a slightly different set of basic assumptions - I say apparently, because I haven't understood the last part of his argument, the bit about Thaetetus's model of knowledge. But I will be looking back at his thesis soon - I find my ability to understand these arguments has improved over time :)

`I'm open to any question. Don't hesitate. Thanks for your interest. The Theaetetus in on the net at many places.`

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/