Bruno, I spent some (!) time on speculating on 'timelessness' - Let me tell up front: I did not solve it. Time as 'primitive? you ask (pardon me for the pun: it is primitive as the idea in our primitive mind) - I ended up with assigning it as a 'space-function' in the concept /movement' (change), just as space is a time-function in the same. Both in our limited human capabilities of 'sort of thinking' allowed by the complex of ideation and brain (disallowing the mind-body dichotomy). Fromwithin our thinking we cannot judge its reliability or exclusivity. I allow phenomena outside our experience and comprehension, because we are limited components in the totality. We "think" in time and Einstein did not like it. We also "think" in space (what is it?). We also 'think' (some of us) in numbers.
Have a good day John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 5:03 AM Subject: Re: Are First Person prime? Le 09-août-06, à 12:46, 1Z a écrit : > Timeless universe, universes where everything that can exist > does exist, are not well founded empirically. So we should understand that you would criticize any notion, sometimes brought by physicists, of "block-universe". Time would be a primitive? What about relativist notion of space-time? BTW I agree with most of your post (of 09/08/2006) to David. At the same time I'm astonished that you seem attracted by the idea of making time a primitive one. I know that some respectable physicists do that (Prigogine, Bohm in some sense), but many physicist does not (Einstein, ...). Of course it is more easy to explain that consciousness supervene on number relations to someone who already accept consciousness could supervene to a block-universe than to someone who want time (or consciousness, or first person notion) to be primitive. Of course I believe that once we assume the comp hyp. there is no more choice in the matter. Let me comment your other post in the same reply (to avoid mail box explosion). > The non-existence of HP universes still doesn't > disprove comp. It shows we con't live in abig universe, > whether a big phsyical univere or a big Platonia. Nice. It means you get the seven steps of the 8-steps version of the UDA. (Universal Dovetailer Argument). Thanks for resending the 15-steps version of it, it can help. Now I think that my SANE paper, which contains the 8 steps version of the UDA, is, despite minor errors, the closest english version of my Lille thesis, and even better with respect to readability. (Except that it lacks, like the 15 steps version) the movie-graph argument). Available here in html or pdf: http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/ SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 08/09/06 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---