On Mar 10, 2:16 am, stephenk <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 11:33 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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 wrote:
> > > >> 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 themoviefilm 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
> > rather subtle
> > > 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
> > > physical.
> > 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 amoviein 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
> There may be a solution to the question of finiteness, such as in
> "why are we each only conscious of one small spatio temporal area?" A
> possible answer is that our consciousness involves the consumption of
> free energy (work) that does not have access to infinite power
> supplies within any finite duration. Action is defined in units of
> energy and time.... This also can be related to the Bekenstein
It's easy enough to answer physicalistically...the problem is the
mismatch with "consciousness
is an emergent property of the system as a whole"
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