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 the present state is determined by more than a 0-width time slice preceding it, then a physical process cannot be arbitrarily sliced up. Computationalism does not help, because computationalism requries counterfactuals. > > > 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 > universe? A block universe with movement is just as dynamic universe (specifically, a growing universe). > Stathis Papaioannou > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---