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?

## Advertising

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 expect. 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. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---