On Mar 9, 1:24 pm, Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/03/11 16:14, Brent Meeker wrote:> On 3/8/2011 3:14 AM, Andrew Soltau
> >> What I am driving at here is the same question as in the email Comp.
> >> Granted that all possible states exist, what changes the point of the
> >> present moment from one to another. My referring to 'the thinker' was
> >> probably not a helpful metaphor. Given the universal numbers, what
> >> carries out the process whereby one is transformed into another? What
> >> makes the state of the thinker or the dreamer into the state of that
> >> entity at the next moment?
> >> Andrew
> > I think the idea is analogous to the block universe. In Platonia all
> > the states of "the thinker" and his relation to the world are
> > "computed" in a timeless way.
> OK. But for any given definition of the thinker, there is a version of
> the world to which he corresponds. Whether considered as a physical
> entity, or a mind or a record of observations, I am instantiated in a
> specific version of the universe. On observation, this state changes.
> The observer is now in a new and different state, and is instantiated in
> a new and different version of the universe.
> If one steps back and looks at all the possible states of the thinker,
> existing in all the different corresponding states of the universe at
> each moment, the result is the movie film Barbour refers to. This is a
> timeless situation.
> > The impression of time for "the thinker" is recovered by putting the
> > states into a sequence which is implicitly defined by their content.
> So then you have a sequence, but still nothing actually happens. This is
> exactly the scenario Deutsch addresses.
> /Nothing/ can move from one moment to another. To exist at all at a
> particular moment means to exist there for ever. (1997, 263; his italics)
> One seems to pass from moment to moment, experiencing change. Deutsch,
> however, declares that this can only be an illusion.
> We do not experience time flowing, or passing. What we experience are
> differences between our present perceptions and our present memories of
> past perceptions. We interpret those differences, correctly, as evidence
> that the universe changes with time. We also interpret them,
> incorrectly, as evidence that our consciousness, or the present, or
> something, moves through time. (1997, 263)
Movement of or through time is dismissed too easily here. Why don we
have to experience our history one moment at a time if it
all already exists (albeit with a sequential structure)
> Physically, this is unassailable.
Hmm. The arguments in favour of the block universe are actually
> However, we can explain the appearance
> of change very neatly, by saying that the frame of reference is changed,
> from one moment to the next to the next, with no change in anything
The "Frame of Reference" being non-physical?
>The only drawback is that this requires something 'outside' of
> the moments, and there is nothing outside the multiverse. The solution I
> propose is that phenomenal consciousness is an emergent property of this
> unitary system as a whole.
If it is a property of the whole system, why are we each only
conscious of one small spatio temporal area? Why bring consciousness
in at all? Why not have a time-cursor that is responsible for
the passage of time?
> In other words, this process is to the
> moments the way the computational capability of a computer is to the
> frames of a movie in solid state memory.
> Based on that, my belief is that, in the collapse dynamics of quantum
> mechanics, we have discovered evidence for a property of the unitary
> system in action, we just haven't recognised it as such. Which is why it
> gives rise to all the puzzles it does.
> > Brent
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at