Thanks, this is fascinating.

On 12/03/11 03:34, Stephen Paul King wrote:
fixing my typos
*From:* Stephen Paul King <>
*Sent:* Friday, March 11, 2011 10:24 PM
*To:* everything-list <>
*Subject:* Re: Implementing Machines
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see in all of this detail leads to is, that at its core essence, Existence is Change itself. Becoming is the fundamental ontological primitive, just as Bergson argued. This is the result that Hitoshi discovered and discussed in his Inconsistent Universe Paper in terms of the truth value of the total Universe being in an infinite oscillation between True and False. Bart Kosko also obtained a similar result in his research on Fuzzy sets. What Barbour really found is that there does not exist a universal */global /*standard of measure of this change. If there is no standard for a measure then there is not a determination of definiteness for the Total Change of existence and thus there is no global measure of change. Since time can be defined in generic terms as a measure of change, Barbour is correct in claiming that time as a global quantity cannot exist. What Barbour missed, as have countless others, is that/*local measures of change can be defined*/. The fact that there is more than one measure of entropy is a huge clue of this. Chris Hillman <> has mapped out some of this. The main reason, I believe, that this fact continues to be overlooked is that people still insist on thinking of time as a scalar numerical/geometric quantity. Yes, it can be represented consistently as such, but we must not confuse a representation with its referent! Time itself is not its representation.
But I still stick to my guns! Even if existence is change itself, and becoming is the fundamental ontological primitive, there is still a fundamental difference of logical type between static existence, a specific state, however defined, and the time evolution of that state into a different state. And, with respect to such change, only something meta to any specific given state is in the position to encounter the change of state. Mundane and hackneyed though the movie analogy may be, it is apposite. Iteration is a nice simple to grasp example, but change of any kind is a different kind of thing to a state, it is of fundamentally different logical type.

Barbour is simply pointing out that all possible states of the world exist 'already'. Just because local measures of change can be defined, this does not address the difference in logical type. In the linear time dimension of spacetime, Penrose essentially endorses Weyl's view. He refers to the 4D reality "past which our field of observation is sweeping", just as Weyl says that "Only to the gaze of my consciousness, crawling up the life-line of my body, does the world fleetingly come to life". These minds are addressing the fact that there is nothing in 4D reality that can witness such a change.

Stepping back, all of the 4D reality complete with linear dynamics changes on collapse. But again, there is nothing in any 4D reality that can witness such a change, which is what Deutsch is saying "/Nothing/ can move from one moment to another. To exist at all at a particular moment means to exist there for ever.". So the same problem exists in the quantum concept of time as exists in the linear time dimension of spacetime. If one is defined by a state, physical or arithmetic, one is not in a position to encounter change of that state, just as a portrayal of an avatar in a frame of a movie cannot watch the movie. This is a logical type issue. We are rather more complex than part of a 2D picture, but that does not affect the basic issue. We are 4D avatars of flesh and blood with onboard computers so complex and clever we are not really clever enough to understand them, but, at any given moment, there is still a specific state defining the avatar. Just as with the movie frame, the change of the real life avatar can only be encountered from outside the avatar. Obviously we seem very obviously to be the experiencer inside the avatar, so it is natural to assume this is an internal process, but this is a somewhat similar mistake to the Earth centred cosmology. It just looks like that. But the experiencer is necessarily 'outside' the sequence of frames, just as one is 'outisde' the virtual reality one participates in venturing in second life. This is all entirely in accord with Existence is Change itself, it's just that it is Existence with a big E which encounters change! This is the 'true self' of millennia of spiritual tradition. And I hasten to add that I am not trying to prove any spiritual or religious point, I see these simply as addressing the different logical type from long before the concept of logical type was defined.

And, from direct and immediate ongoing experience, we know that, while we notice change in world, body and mind, (and even of course Page's identity based on perceptions,) it is consciousness which encounters this change; change is experienced 'in consciousness'. And I continue to consider that this is a highly philosophical point!


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