2010/1/5 Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com>

> 2010/1/5 Nick Prince <m...@dtech.fsnet.co.uk>:
> > Is this because you think of your stream of consciousness as somehow
> > like a reel of film?  All the individual pictures could be cut from
> > the reel and laid out any which way but the implicit order is always
> > there.  I can understand this because all the spatio temporal
> > relationships for the actors in the film remain "normal" i.e obey the
> > laws of physics.  Deutsch argues similarly in the Fabric of reality.
> > In my work I often come across the idea of a foliation of
> > hypersurfaces which is really a set of 3D pictures "stuck together and
> > stacked in the direction of the time coordinate of the world at a
> > given instant of time.  In MW interpretation though I guess that the
> > stacking is less certain as in the block universe idea but that's
> > another issue.  Is this analogy similar to how you feel  the "obvious"
> > experience of time being normal?
>
> (I'm afraid the idea of a foliation of hypersurfaces is wasted on me
> as an explanatory aid!)
>
> It's like a reel of film in which the characters are conscious. For an
> outside observer rearranging the frames out of sequence and playing
> the film would be totally confusing, but for the characters in the
> film it would make no difference. because the ordering is implicit in
> the information contained in each frame.
>
> Consider a set of three one minute intervals of experience, {S1, S2,
> S3}, which belong to a person S. S2 remembers S1 and remembers no gap
> or intervening experiences between S2 and S1; S3 remembers S1 and S2
> and remembers that S1 preceded S2; and S3 also remembers no gap or
> intervening experiences between S2 and S1 or between S3 and S2. In
> other words, they are subjectively three consecutive minutes in the
> life of S. S is aware that his experiences are generated on a
> computer, and he is also aware that they are being generated in one of
> two ways: in sequence as S1, S2, S3 or out of sequence as S2, S1, S3.
> Does S have any basis for deciding that it is more likely that his
> experiences are being generated in sequence?
>
>
It seems to me that it depends if the computation is iterative or not... in
other words, to compute step N you must have computed step N-1 before that.

If you can directly compute step N without computing prior step, S2/S1/S3 is
possible. If not you had necessarily computed step S1 before S2, only by
doing a replay of a previously done computation you could do it :

- first generate S1/S2/S3 in order and save each intermediate result, then
you can do
- S2 (taking the previously intermediate result of S1), S1 then S3 (taking
S2 result).

But running the same thing more times add a priori nothing. If the process
is iterative then "in order" computation win the measure battle (because any
out of order one require a genuine in order computation before).

Regards,
Quentin


>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
> --
>
> 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
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--

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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


Reply via email to