From: Brent Meeker 
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
On 3/10/2011 7:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

  From: Andrew Soltau 
  Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:47 AM
  Subject: Re: Movie cannot think
  On 09/03/11 16:53, Brent Meeker wrote: 
    The appearance of change is already explained by the fact that there are 
different frames that have an implicit sequence and in which the observers 
state is different.  Further "explanation" is just muddying the picture - at 
leas that's what Deutsch et al would say.

      by saying that the frame of reference is changed, f

    But this is no more than a magic finger pointing to the frames and saying, 
"This one. And then this one.  And then...."

  Which is what one seems to be experiencing.


    [SPK] One thing must be considered: There are more that one possible 
sequence of observer states. Not only are we considering all possible frames 
for a single movie but the frames for every possible movie too, even the ones 
that are pure noise! All of them will be equally co-present in the heap and 
there is no a priori bias for one over another. 
        The magic finger is a figure of speech of something that selects one of 
them: how is the one that is “actually experienced” selected? I propose that a 
mutual constraint methodology such as what has been proposed as a solution the 
the concurrency problem in computer science may answer this. But this 
possibility seems to be a bit outside of the light of the lamppost under which 
we currently are looking for the answer...



Actually I think this picture of observer states as being like frames of a 
movie is misleading.  What we could identify as an observation or an 
experience, overlaps with preceding and succeeding observer states and this 
provides an explicit order.  Bruno's idea of digital simulation by a Turing 
machine, which has idealized discreet states, can only work at a much lower 
level so that a momentary "experience" corresponds to a very large number of 
simulation states. 



    But exactly how is the overlap (and underlap) determined? We are leaving 
something out here! We cannot treat objects that have variable information 
content as just another case of fungible tokens! When we do this we are 
completely eliminating the notion of meaningfulness. There is a difference 
between a frame that depicts a deer and fawn feeing in the forest and a frame 
that shows the screen of a TV set to a non-existing channel, but if all we are 
considering are the frames as objects we have no means to determine the 
sequence of frames. Frames alone are fungible. There is at least more than one 
level of information here!

    Axioms and assumptions have consequences.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to