Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2009, at 20:06, Brent Meeker wrote:
>> David Nyman wrote:
>>> 2009/7/28 Bruno Marchal <>:
> snip
>>>> David Nyman wrote:
>>> However I have a wacky intuition: despite the platonic criterion of
>>> co-existence, 1-person experience of the temporal dynamism (i.e.
>>> sequentiality) of the part - i.e. each OM - might reasonably persuade
>>> us that sequentiality should also possess, in some ineliminable  
>>> sense,
>>> a role in the whole.  Consequently, under this assumption, could the
>>> UD (to reify it only to this degree) be conceived for this purpose to
>>> be 'sequentially resolving' each 'OM-programme-step'?  Indeed my
>>> understanding is that this dovetailed sequentiality is actually a key
>>> conceptual element of COMP.  In this sense - and in this sense only -
>>> could the UD therefore be thought of as temporally instantiating that
>>> OM *uniquely* at each step on behalf of the whole COMP-multiverse,  
>>> and
>>> thus bringing into focus - in effect - its *unique* point of view?
>> As I understand it the sequence of the states computed by the UD is  
>> unrelated to
>> sequence of experienced states.
> Why? The UD does compute the complete evolution of the quantum state  
> of the Milky Way, at all finite levels of description, which include  
> ridiculous precision like computation with omega[omega]omega digits,  
> and this in all consistent (with comp) manners to marry GR and QM. Why  
> wouldn't the sequence of "Brent Meeker's'states", corresponding to all  
> the approximations of your actual life, not be experienced?

I wasn't saying they were not experienced - only that the order experienced, 
1-person time, need not the be same as the computated order.

> I am going to explain in detail that the UD computes, in the  
> mathematical sense. This is different from an enumeration description  
> of computations, or of computational states. The UD, or elementary  
> arithmetic (or combinator theory, etc.) does not just enumerate  
> computational states, it relates them to their possible computational  
> path.
>> The sequence in which states are experienced is
>> determined by something inherent to the states and may be completely  
>> different
>> from the order of their computation.
> Why? The UD dovetailing just introduces delays, but the order of  
> states is respected in most computations, except in the "Harry  
> Potter"  or white rabbit computations. And the "first persons views"  
> are delay independent.

But aren't the exceptions infinite and even dense in the set of states?


>> I don't know that this is a particular
>> problem for COMP though.  Physics already has a notorious problem  
>> with time and
>> it is not clear that time exists at the fundamental level.
> Apparently Lee Smolin and Loop Gravity theorists seems to give time a  
> foundational role, like they speculate on the uniqueness of the  
> universe. Of course the existence even of the appearance of physical  
> time or space and matter  is still an unsolved problem once we assume  
> we are digital machine. Computationalism has problems. It is the point  
> of the UD derivation to show that. The only point which has been  
> solved with comp is an explanation of the appearance of many worlds,  
> the non booleanity of observability logics, the appearance of strong  
> indeterminacy, the appearance of subjective (1-person) time, and the  
> gap between self-referential science and self-referential theology,  
> and (trivially) the appearance of mathematics in physics and science.
> Bruno

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

Reply via email to