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 programmes. > > 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 > interval. 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 > motion. Given some external apparatus -- you need a movie projector to show a movie -- so this cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. > 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 [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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
