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 

Reply via email to