Hi Abram,

I agree mostly with Brent's reply. Other precision should appear in my  
explanation of the UDA to Kim, and in my answer to Ronald (Sunday).
I will just add general remarks to Brent's reply.

Le 19-déc.-08, à 00:18, Abram Demski a écrit :

> [Sorry if this is a duplicate, I think that I did not send correctly
> the first time.]
> Bruno, everyone,
> I've decided that it will be more productive/entertaining to post my
> various concerns as a new topic.
> What is time?

Third person sharable time could be an illusion. It seems to me that  
QM + General Relativity could lead to the idea that there is no real  
"physical time". With MEC this is a direct consequence of the UDA.
First person time, or subjective, akin to Bergson notion of "duration"  
can be explained in the AUDA. It appears that the formal notion of  
first person leads naturally toward a temporal logic. Like in  
Plotinus, the "soul" is the creator of time.

> I'm going to ask a bunch of questions; for the sake of brevity, I'm
> going to skip my arguments (which would mostly be reasons why
> particular answers don't work). I'll argue once someone replies.
> If all possible universes exist, does that mean every possible moment,
> or every possible timeline of moments? If "moments" is the answer,
> then how are the moments connected? How would it matter, since the
> moments already are what they are? If "timeline" is the answer, then
> there is a similar question of how it matters.

What do you mean by "how it matters"? It is a bit like free will. It  
exists because from our points of view we cannot know the "end of the  
That ignorance, and thus free will is preserved by the mechanist  
hypothesis. It is even made intrinsical.

> If there is a physical universe, then is there some sort of basic
> physical connection behind time?

Open and difficult problem for the physics you can extract from comp.  
Of course, if there is a primary physical universe, we have to resolve  
the problem of marrying QM and GR before being able to answer your  
question. Very difficult question.

> If the universe is mathematical in nature, then what is the
> mathematical connection between moments? What sort of mathematical
> connection counts as time?

I would say that it is logic-mathematical connections. With MEC those  
relations eventually originates with the natural number successor  
I will say a bit more sunday in my answer to Ronaheld. The problem is  
that it is hard not being a bit technical here. You have to understand  
the mathematical concept of computation, and then to understand that  
those computations exists in arithmetic, and indeed are accessible  
through proof in a very tiny part of arithmetic: the theorems of  
Robinson Arithmetic (RA). RA is Peano Arithmetic *without* the  
induction axioms.
PA is the lobian machine. And RA generated all the histories which  
notably contain all the Lobian machines. RA simulates PA like I can  
simulate Einstein's brain, or a Chinese brain. This is a subtle point  
where people do sometimes the Error of Searle with his Chinese Room.

> If (as was recently suggested, in connection with relativity) time
> cannot really be divided into individual moments, then what is it?

It is an ordering on machine knowledge states, and/or observation  
states.  It is a very complex ordered structure (should be isomorphic  
to the lattice of open sets in a complex topological space and/or  
Hilbert Space). I approach the math of those spaces with the modal  
logic of self-reference and their intensional variants.

> Why do we experience time passing?

Each of our knowledge state are relative state generated by "a most  
probable computation" (generated by the UD, or living in arithmetic).  
Mainly by ignorance, we feel our knowledge being divided into a sort  
of past-certainty, and sort of future-uncertainty. Those things can be  
described by modal logic. I argue all those modal logic arise from  
self-reference in arithmetic.

> Is it legitimate to think as if the next moment we experience will be
> chosen randomly in some sense?

Yes. I believe everyone in this list agree with this, but differ on  
the distribution law, the relative or absolute nature of the  
probabilities, and about the nature of the events on which the  
probability bears on.
In the case of comp, I argue (through UDA+AUDA) that our next  
experience is chosen randomly on the set of all computations going  
through our actual state which have been generated by the UD, or are  
"living" in that tiny arithmetic.
There are 2^aleph_0 histories. The measure should be non constructive  
(thus physics cannot be entirely described by a program or machine)

> Does probability or randomness have a
> role to play in the flow of time?

I would say yes, given that once a universal machine observes itself  
it separates a growing "past" from a growing "future".
There is a sort of self-diffraction: the better a machine observes  
itself, the bigger is the set of possible futures (consistent  
continuations of computations) she gets.

> In connection with UDA: what is the meaning of a first-person
> probability due to uncertainty of the future?

I will explain this soon to Kim. I suggest you ask in the case this  
remains unclear, or if you have objection. It is not possible to  
explain this shortly.

> Is there any sense in
> which such estimates can be more or less accurate if all possible next
> moments do in fact occur?

All what we have to do consists in finding discrepancies between the  
theory and the observations. I bet QM is correct, so I tend to bet  
that the comp estimation of the possible moments will give the same  
estimation than QM.  This would explain where QM comes from. This  
remains to be seen of course, but formally, preliminary modest results  
are going in that direction. Bits and Qubits comes from each other.

Hope this short answer to difficult questions can help. I will say  
more to Ronald Sunday, and I invite you to follow the KIM thread where  
I explain UDA. And perhaps then I can explain AUDA with the amount of  
technical details demanded.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to