On 05 Jan 2009, at 01:10, Thomas Laursen wrote:
> I admit that consciousness is a bit special but what about time as
> (nothing but) a space dimension? Do you agree on this?
The physicist in me don't know. But he likes the universal equation of
the multiverse E = 0, in which physical time disappear globally.
The computationalist does not even know if there is space .... I got
just the shadow of the shadows of braids and perhaps knots. I dream
about a rich quantum universal topology.
> (put aside
> whether time/space is only in the mind, as you think, or really exist)
Some things which are only in the mind could really exist, once you
accept that mind exists.
All I say is that if MEC is true (in the coginitive science, or in
theology ...) then those things (space, time, energy) emerge from what
numbers can tell about numbers. I will be able to say more if I get to
the AUDA (the Arithmetical version of the UDA) where things are more
I am not suggesting a new physics, I just make a point in "theology":
if we are machine, the theory of matter will be a modality on
arithmetic. A numbers' view of numbers, and numbers' sequences, well
everything representable in Robinson arithmetic, or by a universal (in
the sense of Church Turing) immaterial (number-theoretical) machine.
> On Jan 3, 10:39 am, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>> I disagree, and your remark singles out the problem with the bird's
>> eye/frog view of Tegmark. Those two views remains "third person point
>> of views". Consciousness is intrinsically a first person view. You
>> cannot describe it in any third person point of view. This explains
>> why the Aristotelians want so much eliminate consciousness.
>> But you are right for memories and the the possible discourse *about*
>> consciousness, this can be compared to marks on some block-structure.
>> Consciousness itself will be more a "distributed" logical feature in
>> the whole of the block reality. Consciousness, even consciousness of
>> time and space, is not something you can effectively relate to time
>> and space. Assuming comp you can relate it to fixed point of self-
>> observation and other "logical" (but non geometrical) things. Then
>> discourses made by conscious entities have themselves invariant
>> pattern, like "we cannot define it", "we cannot explain it " that you
>> can (with luck) recognize in the (more geometrical) marks.
>> Bruno Marchal
>> On 03 Jan 2009, at 06:46, Thomas Laursen wrote:
>>> If I understand the "standard" MWI right (with my layman brain)
>>> Demski's view of time is very much in accordance with it, except
>>> time should be looked at simply as a fourth space dimension. A
>>> eye view on the whole universe (= all it's "actualized" worlds)
>>> be like a static picture where, lets say, the beginning (big bang)
>>> at the left side (or right if you're Chinese), the present in the
>>> middle, and the future at the right. Of course this (2-dimensional)
>>> picture is extremely simplified but the idea behind is true (if I
>>> understand Everett and others, mainly Deutsch and Tegmark in their
>>> popular papers, right). Memory is then nothing but "marks" in the
>>> brain, and consciousness just like other moving things in nature
>>> a (relatively) stable structure (a body, river, plant, etc), only
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