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 > bound.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound > > Onward! > > Stephen
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 everything-list@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.
