On 3/22/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> John M wrote:
> > Stathis and Brent:
> >
> > ineresting and hard-to-object sentiments.
> > Would it not make sense to write instead of
> > "we are" (thing-wise) -
> > the term less static, rather process-wise:
> > "We do"  (in whatever action)?
> >
> > John M
>
> That's part of what I'm struggling with.  ISTM that OMs, being static, may
> leave out something essential to consciousness.  But this conflicts with the
> idea of simulations in which all process rates are encoded statically as
> state values.  I think however this misses the point that a simulation must
> be *run* and that when it is run the computer provides the "rate", i.e.
> the clock.


As Quentin said, the computer clock rate cannot be determined from within
the simulation. Also, as far as I am aware no-one has been able to come up
with a method for distinguishing between block universe time and linear
time, as in a block universe static slices give rise to the effect (or
illusion) of linear time.

Stathis Papaioannou

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to