On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 07:54:30AM -0400, Stephen Paul King wrote: > Hi Bruno, > > Ummm,, again I completely fail to communicate a basic idea to you. My > apologies. Have you read Russell’s book? > > Onward! > > Stephen >
I confess I got lost too with your presentation. My gut feeling is your discomfort stems from an "almost magical" insertion of the subjective (ie a knower) into the UDA. Another way of putting it is "what runs the UD?". However, the knower is introduced explicitly with the "yes, doctor" assumption - that I survive with my "brain" substituted by a digital device. What is this "I" if it isn't the knower? What possible meaning can "survive" have, without there being a sense of "being"? Externally, a UD just exists as a static program (just a number that exists platonically). However, once you have a knower, you can run the UD, albeit viewed from the inside. In my book I make this explicit with the TIME postulate, but I don't see anything hugely controversial about it. It is not referring to any external time, just that the knower cannot experience all experiences at once. Have I put my finger on it, or is this just wide of the mark? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [email protected] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
