On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:39, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/31/2012 1:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

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 what is that measure.

Intuitively it is the limit of the number going through your actual state in bigger and bigger finite portions of the UD*. Technically you need the logic S4grz1, Z1* and X1* to define it properly. We know it is exists if comp is correct, and so we an use it to test comp. The measure one has a logic which is already well defined at the propositional level, and it has already enough quantum feature to define an arithmetical quantization.





Are you saying 1p experiences on exist in an implicit order when all the uncountably infinite UD computations are done?

With a large sense of order, this is a consequence of the invariance of the first person experience for the delays of reconstitution in UD*.




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, ...

That's sort of a no-person time;

OK.



a time not experienced or accessible to anyone.

?
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ...
I just access it right now.



I think of third person time as something like proper time in GR or entropy increase - the sort of time that people can reach intersubjective agreement about, what you measure on a clock.

OK.



I don't know which Brian was referring to, but I doubt it was the no- person time of the UD.

I don't know.

Bruno




Brent

--
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 .


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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