Le 06-juil.-05, à 07:16, Russell Standish a écrit :

On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 06:47:40PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
There have been many, many investigations of this idea. It may
not be an exaggeration to say that the main theme of this list
has been a pursuit of the idea. But Stephen Paul King gives a
very appropriate name to all the sponsors of these ideas, from
Bruno and Russell, all the way to Julian Barbour: the time-

I hate it when someone introduces a new term I don't understand. What,
pray, are "time deniers"? Is it related at all to the material jeans
are made out of?

Actually - I suddenly realised what you have just said, and so I left
the previous passage in for a little light relief. I find it amazing
that you claim I deny the existence of time. Au contraire, it is
something I explicitly assume. My reading of Bruno's work is that time
is implicitly assumed as part of computationalism (I know Bruno
sometimes does not quite agree, but there you have it).

The true "time deniers" on this list are those favouring the ASSA -
Jacques Mallah, Saibal Mitra, etc. I never worked out your position Lee?

Mmmhhh.... To be frank I can hardly imagine someone more ``time denier" than me! Unless by "time" you mean "consciousness", in the spirit of Brouwer. But even that *time* is not postulated, I do think I (re)obtain it trough the theaetetus' move (this is debatable, sure).

Of course I am a physical-time denier (like Einstein, at least when he told his friend Besso that time is an illusion "for us physicist"). But I am all the same a space denier, and a <whatever physical & primitive>-denier. I think (through comp) that the whole of physics is secondary, emergent on the atemporal-aspatial relation between numbers (even natural numbers).

Comp does not need time, it needs the notion that each natural numbers has a successor. This is enough to study "atemporal" succession of computing states.



Reply via email to