Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Peter Jones writes: > > > > > > 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. > > Your original point was that the continuous flow of consciousness is evidence > against a block > universe. It is not, whether the time slices are of finite or infinitesimal > duration.
It is, because however you slice a dynamic sequence, you don't remove the dynamism. You just get lots of little dynamic slices. >I'm not sure > what you mean by the last sentence either: are you suggesting that time is > quantised rather > than continuous, and if so how is that evidence against a block universe? No, I am suggesting that 0-width slices don't contain enough information to predict future states in physics. > > Computationalism does not help, because computationalism requries > > counterfactuals. > > I don't see why it does, or why it makes any difference to the present > question if it does. Computer programmes contain conditional (if-then) statements. A given run of the programme will in genreal not explore every branch. yet the unexplored branches are part of the programme. A branch of an if-then statement that is not executed on a particular run of a programme will constitute a counterfactual, a situation that could have happened but didn't. Without counterfactuals you cannot tell which programme (algorithm) a process is implementing because two algorithms could be have the same execution path but different unexecuted branches. > > > > > 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). > > The effect of movement would be the same in a block universe as in a linear > universe. If time > is discrete then in a linear universe movement is the result of a series of > static frames of finite > duration, like the frames in a film. Finitism doesn't imply stasis. New frames could be popping into existence dynamically. > If time is continuous then in a linear universe movement is the > result of a series of static frames of infinitesimal duration. Likewise. > There is no room for movement within > a frame in either case - There is room within an infinitessimal frame. dx/dt is not necessarily zero. > that is what defines it as a frame - but the series of frames creates the > effect of movement. > > Stathis Papaioannou > > _________________________________________________________________ > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > ht --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
