Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > 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.
> Every physical system contains if-then statements. If the grooves on the
> record were different,
> then the sound coming out of the speakers would also be different.
Exactly. And if non-phsyical systems (Plato' Heaven) don't
implement counterfactuals, then they can't run programmes,
and if Plato's heaven can't run programmes, it can't be running us as
> > 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.
> No-one knows what dx/dt is.
We can handle it mathematically. If we make dt exactly equal to zero,
everythign stops working.
Either a process is broken into non-zero sized slices,
in which case they dynamism is still their, or it is
broken into 0-sized slices, whoch doesn't work mathematically.
> It is the smallest non-zero number, or the reciprocal of the
> largest finite number. If there is room for movement within an infinitesimal
> interval then
> it can by definition be divided up further - it isn't an infinitesimal
infinitessimals can be divided into further infinitessimals.
> However, this is
> straying from the original point I wanted to make, which is that whatever
> reasons there
> might be against block universe theories, continuity of consciousness is not
> one of them.
> Every digital computer has clock cycles during which nothing actually
> "happens", and it is
> the conjunction of these cycles which makes the program "flow". There is no
> way from
> within the program to know what the clock rate is, if there are pauses in the
> program, or
> if it is being run in several parallel processes. You might argue that it
> would not be possible
> to run the program at all without a causal connection between the steps, but
> the fact
> remains, discontinuous framesd during which nothing changes give the illusion
> of continuous
Given some external apparatus -- you need a movie projector
to show a movie -- so this cannot be applied to the universe as a
> 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