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