On 05 Jan 2010, at 19:57, Brent Meeker wrote:

## Advertising

Yes but the UD will generate infinitely more often the in order S1/S2/S3than out of order... with what you are saying I don't even understand what is a computation if not a rules ordered sequential state order. QuentinIt seems strange that we start with the hypothesis thatconsciousness is a kind of computation - a sequential processing ofinformation - and then arrive at picture in which there is noprocessing and sequence is just inferred. On the one handconsciousness is a process, on the other hand it is static state. Isuspect there is something wrong with the slicing of the stream ofconsciousness into zero-duration, non-overlapping states.

`But that problem occurs also with physics, as illustrated by the`

`debate on "time" and "block universe".`

`Also, we have to be careful: no where it has been said that`

`consciousness is a kind of computation. Obviously "consciousness" is`

`not a kind of computation. It is a property of (first) person, which,`

`assuming mechanism, is invariant for a set of functional substitution.`

`Then a reasoning shows that we cannot distinguish a "physical`

`computation" from a mathematical one, and that we have to take this`

`into account for justifying the (conscious) appearance of the physical`

`laws.`

`Slicing the stream of consciousness, or just the stream of time like`

`the physicists do a lot, into zero-length interval is a critics of the`

`use of real number, and somehow comp escapes it, given that real`

`numbers does not (necessarily) exists at the ontological level. They`

`exist necessarily at the epistemological level though.`

I can see that states can encode information that, when coarsegrained, define a sequence of increasing entropy, but is itlegitimate to identify having the information "in memory" with"remembering"?

`In my opinion, time is far less problematical in comp than in physics,`

`given that we assume a form of primitive time, first by the number`

`order, then by the length of computations or of proofs.`

`Arithmletic and provability logic are so "antisymmetrical" that I was`

`afraid the comp physics would contradict the very symmetry of nature`

`(laws of physics are reversible, most computations are not).`

`But the "intelligible and sensible" comp "matter" (the probability one`

`defined by Bp & Dt (& p), luckily enough seems able to restaure the`

`symmetry, or at least some symmetry. Enough? Open problem.`

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-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.