On 3/22/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/22/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <mailto:[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.
> I'm well aware of that - I've written a lot of simulations, ODE, PDE, and
> stochastic.  But ISTM that if I look at what a computer is doing in running
> a simulation, its state is defined by a lot of variable values and functions
> that computer the rate-of-change of those variables - not just the
> values.  When it runs, the integration routine uses the functions to
> generate new values.  I'm not insisting on the computer hardware here - it
> applies equally to an abstract computation in Platonia.  It take the states
> to correspond to OMs.  But the states are not standing in isolation with no
> relation.  They are related by the integrator.  The integrator may be
> thought of as simulator of time.  If it is part of an OM then and OM
> includes rates and an arrow of time that, togther, point to the next OM.  If
> it is not part of the OM, then OMs alone are not sufficient to construct
> consciousness.  At least that's what I think part of the time ;-)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to the fact that a real
computer does not instantaneously jump from one state to the other, but goes
through a process, i.e. a finite current flows when a "1" turns into a "0"?
These transitional states are ignored as an irrelevant hardware detail when
considering abstract machines.

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