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  
> set
> 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,  
> different
> 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
> states?

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  
> the
> 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to