On 3/10/2011 6:47 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* Brent Meeker <mailto:meeke...@dslextreme.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 1:39 PM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: Movie cannot think
On 3/10/2011 7:15 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
*From:* Andrew Soltau <mailto:andrewsol...@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:47 AM
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*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.

We do if they overlap. Of course if we consider "frames" at a very low level then they don't overlap - but then they don't depict much of anything we'd recognize either.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to