Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 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".
Yes, I certainly would! It is unable to explain the subjective
passage of time. Dismissing the subjective sensation of the passge of
as "merely subjective" or "illusional" is a surreptitious
appeal to dualism and therefore un-physicalistic!
>Time would be a primitive?
> What about relativist notion of space-time?
What indeed ? It means time is local, not that time is non-existent.
> 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,
The ones that do can expalain my subjective sensation
of time, the ones that don't, can't.
> 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.
A computation (as opposed to an algorithm) is a process taking
place in time. Not many people would say "yes" to a doctor
who wanted to make a static image of their brain and store
it in a filing cabinet.
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