On 21 Apr 2009, at 20:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
> I understand that the UD computes all different histories so they are
> interleaved. But each particular computation consists of an ordered
> of states. These states can belong to more than one sequence of
> conscious experience. But the question is whether the order of the
> states in the computation is always the same as their order in any
> sequence of conscious experience in which they appear? For example, if
> there is a computation of states A, B, and C then is that a possible
> sequence in consciousness? In general there will be another,
> computation that computes the states in the order A, C, B, so is that
> too a possible sequence in consciousness? Or is the experienced
> sequence in consciousness the same - determined by some intrinsic to
The experienced sequence will be the same, I think. I would even guess
that it will correspond to the sequence in most singular low grained
computations going through those states (if our substitution level is
not too low...) , but things get trickier with A, B, C very close, I
Remember that if the Mandelbrot set is creative (in the snes of Post),
or universal (in the sense of Turing) then all your 3-states of mind
(future, present, past, and elsewhere) are densely distributed on the
its border. Subjective time is an internal construct, and with comp,
physical time is probably a first person plural construct (we share
our physical histories).
>> I have still a residual doubt that a quantum computer makes sense
>> mathematically, but if that exists, then there exist a reversible
>> universal dovetailing.
> I don't understand that remark. Universal dovetailing is a completely
> abstract mathematical construct. It exists in Platonia. So how can
> existence of a reversible (i.e. information preserving) UD depend on
> quantum computers?
Oh? It is just that I can use the quantum UD to provide an example.
But you are really correct, and if there is any reversible universal
machine, then I can build a reversible universal dovetailing. I could
use billiard ball or Wand never effacing machine. The difficulty is
that I can executed it only from a point in an infinite past.
I have the same difficulty with "running reversibly a program
computing all decimals of the square root of 2", or even just
counting . When will I start? I have to consider a non well founded
set of type ... 6 5 4 3 2 1 0.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at