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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to