On 30 Aug 2012, at 18:56, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally important to define time.

In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... is enough, notably to named the steps of execution of the UD (UD*), or of the programs execution we can see in UD*, or equivalently in a tiny subset of arithmetical truth.

Are you saying time-order corresponds to the order of execution of steps in the UD?

The first person time-order is given by the relative measure on the computations. But this relies on all computations, and they need a third person time-order, and I am just saying that this one is reducible by the natural number order.

I don't see how that can be consistent with your idea that our sequence of conscious experiences corresponds to a "closest continuation" of a our present state. Our present state is supposedly visited infinitely many times by the UD.

Yes, that is for the first person time order, and thus for the physical time too, as the whole physics emerges from the first person plural indeterminacy. But to define computation, we need a thrid person time, and for this one, as the UD illustrates, we need only the natural number canonical order: 0, 1, 2, 3, ...



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