Russell Standish wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 07:41:37AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > My dear fellow, as I explained in a previous post, consciousness IS a
> > second time dimension.  The 'Block-universe' view of time (B-Theory)
> > and the 'Flowing River' view of time (A-Theory) can both be partially
> > right *if* we allow time to have more than one component or dimension.
> > The block universe is the mathematical 'scaffolding' of time.  But
> > superimposed on top of this is *another* component to time....
> > conscious (sentient) observer moments.  The block scaffolding of time
> > doesn't flow.  But the observer moments *do*.
> They can also be both right if they're held to be emergent concepts
> (in the precise form of the term I use). Extra dimensionality is not
> needed.

The key point I think is that both the A-theorists and the B-theorists
are partially right.  The debates over A-Theory of time and B-Theory of
time strike me as similar to the debates over whether light was
particles or waves.  I think the trick is to seperate 'time' into
several different components - there's a mathematical scaffolding which
*doesn't* flow (the block universe of the B-Theorists) and there's
something else which *does* flow (I think it's conscious -sentient -
observer moments).

All the anthropic reasoning stuff is bunk in my opinion.  It's based on
the faulty idea that one can reason about consciousness by equating
observer moments with parts of the block universe.  But as I suggest
above, you can't do this.

> >
> > Poor old Nick Bostrom and the other pompous academic fools are all so
> > confused because they think consciousness is reducible to physical
> > time.
> I find this suprising. I've never seen any of Bostrom's writings that
> indicates this.

Bostrom's writings appear to grant validity to anthropic reasoning
(which I think is bunk) and also appear to identify consciousness
(sentient observer-moments) with pre-existing computations in the
block-universe.  As I suggested above, consciousness is not reducible
to physical processes and this is what invalidates anthropic reasoning.

> > This is the source of all the confusion about anthropic
> > reasoning and observer moments.  Consciousness is *not* reducible to
> > physical time, but is *another* time dimension super-imposed over the
> > top of (supervening on but not reducible to) physical time.  As I said
> > in my previous post:  'Consciousness is movement of mathematical
> > continuants through mathematical configuration space' (i.e. a higher
> > dimensional - abstract - time).
> >
> > If the academics didn't spend all their time jetting around the world
> > on elaborate conferences and trying to impress us all with fancy
> > 'papers' and 'lectures' filled with worthless verbiage they would have
> > realized that time had more than one dimension and that consciousness
> > should be directly equated with an extra dimension long ago.
> >
> I take it then that you're spending all your time jetting around the world
> to sit in on conferences where "pompous academics" present worthless
> papers filled with verbiage. Half your luck!
> I'm not an academic myself, and rarely get an opportunity to attend
> conferences. But in these lean times, not many of my academic
> colleagues do either.

I'm not an academic.  In fact the more time I've spent around these
folks (on various internet mailing lists) the more they irritate me.
They just ain't any fun.

um.... now why does your sig say 'professor Russell Standish',
Mathematics with a academic address given? ;)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to