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 email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at