Russell, thanks for the non-argumentative position (understatement, but I
mean it so).
I am merely pointing out the necessity of TIME. One can treat it as an axiom
(as I do), seek further justification in terms of other axioms
(eg computationalism), or provide a model that doesn't satisfy it in
order to show it is not necessary.
I appreciate that you are attempting to do the third of these options,
and I will be most intrigued with your results should you obtain
any. In the meantime, I find it more productive to work with it as an
axiom, and to provide some "handwaving" justifications for it.
You use "axiom" as if it were something reasonable. It is a postulate to
facilitate an idea (theory/rem?) within a model. So are 'givens'. - Even
'emergent marvels' point to our ignorance about the origin of a composite of
viable processes producing them.
I don't claim a productive practicality - the idea of thinking (about)
wholism is a starting line, not even ready for "obtaining results".
Let's talk about it 2-300 years from now.
Some 'dreamers' paved the way for advancement.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: Implications of MWI