2010/1/5 Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com>:

>> 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).

Another way to compute S2 without using S1 would be to run the UD.

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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to