On 5/9/2011 2:57 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:17:38AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Having an experience includes experiencing duration and sequence.

Russell posited that the OM could be defined as the “state of a
machine” in 
http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list@googlegroups.com/msg14307.html

Why would we suppose something static, like a "state", could
constitute an OM that includes the experience of time?  That's why I
think OMs are vague and the term is not well defined.
I thought the whole idea of an OM was that it didn't include the
experience of time. It is an atomic structure of experience. Time can
only be experienced as motion from one OM to the next (via projection,
for example).

I'm just asking; I didn't invent the idea. I time can be experienced as motion from one OM to the next, then it would seem that experience of motion must either belong to an intermediate OM or it is an experience that is not part of any OM. My idea was that OM's correspond to many computational states which have an inherent sequence and successive OMs overlap. But that's not consistent with the idea that they are atomic.

Brent

Brent

     My argument is that the traditional notion of a measure does not
apply because we cannot assume the simultaneous co-reliability of OMs,
thus the DA is an artifact of misapplied statistics.
I don't understand that.
[SPK]
The Doomsday argument discusses the statistics of an ensemble of
possible humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
“The *Doomsday argument* (*DA*) is a probabilistic argument
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_argument>  that claims
to predict<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predict>  the number of
future members of the human species
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_species>  given only an
estimate of the total number of humans born so far. Simply put, it
says that supposing the humans alive today are in a random place
in the whole human history timeline, chances are we are about
halfway through it.”
    My point is that “the whole human history timeline” assumes
the Newtonian (Laplacean Demon
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon>) idea that all
events are observable by some hypothetical entity that is exterior
to the universe (aka God). Do I need to knock that rubbish pile
over for you?
Onward!
Stephen
.
--
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.
--
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.


--
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.

Reply via email to