Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > Peter Jones writes:
> > >
> > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know if block universe theories are true or not, but the
> > > > > subjective
> > > > > passage of time is not an argument against them. If mind is
> > > > > computation, do
> > > > > you believe that a conscious computation can tell if it is being run
> > > > > as a sequential
> > > > > series of steps or in parallel, without any external information?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If it is being run at all, it is dynamic, not static. Parallel
> > > > processes are still
> > > > processes.
> > >
> > > But the important point is that the temporal sequence does not itself
> > > make a difference
> > > to subjective experience.
> > We don't actually know that it is possible that
> > there might be some flicker effect.
> Not necessarily. I'm suggesting that the actual physical events are *exactly*
> the same,
> just their order is different. If the world were created 5 minutes ago,
> complete with
> fossils, ruins, false memories etc., you could not be aware of this on the
> basis of any
> observation - by definition, otherwise the illusion would not be perfect.
> This is of course
> no reason to believe that the world was created 5 minutes ago; but it does
> mean that
> the absence of a sensation of having just flickered into existence is no
> evidence *against*
> this theory.
My original point stands. There is no evidence *for* the theory. If
state is determined by more than a 0-width time slice preceding it,
a physical process cannot be arbitrarily sliced up.
Computationalism does not help, because computationalism requries
> > > Would you say that it is in theory possible for the subjective
> > > passage of time to be as we know it if the blocks were not infinitesimal,
> > > but lasted for
> > > a second, so that the whole ensemble of blocks lasted for a second?
> > There is still duration within blocks
> Yes, and...
> > > Then what if you
> > > make the blocks shorter in duration and larger in number, progressively
> > > down to
> > > infinitely many blocks of infinitesimal duration: is there room for
> > > dynamism in an
> > > infenitesimal interval?
> > There are such things as infintiessimal velocities...
> So if there is room for movement in infinitesimal intervals (or through
> combination of
> infinitesimal intervals) in a linear theory of time, why not with a block
A block universe with movement is just as dynamic universe
a growing universe).
> Stathis Papaioannou
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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