On 11/1/2012 11:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Nov 2012, at 01:01, Stephen P. King wrote:Dear Bruno,Exactly what do these temporal concepts, such as "explain","solve", "interacting" and " emulating", mean in an atemporalsetting? You are mixing temporal and atemporal ideas. ...Study a good book in theoretical computer science. You told me thatyou have the book by Matiyazevich. he does explicitly emulate Turingmachine, which have a quite physical look, with a moving head, andobeying instruction is a temporal manner, and yet they can be shown tobe emulated by a the existence or non existence of solution ofDiophantine equations.

Dear Bruno,

`That book, full of wonderful words and equations, is a physical`

`object. That physical object is, in my thinking, an example of an`

`implementation of the "emulation of a Turing Machine..." just as the`

`image on my TV of Rainbow Dash and her friends is a physical`

`implementation of magical Ponies. You seem to ignore the obvious...`

But this is already no more an enigma for many physicists which agreethat temporality is just an illusion resulting from projection fromhigher dimension.

`Those physicists are wrong in their belief. This is argued well in`

`this paper http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9708055 and in any other`

`places. I recall a long chat that I had with Julian Barbor. In it I`

`tried to ask him about the computational complexity of implementing his`

`'time capsule' and 'best matching' ideas, he seemed to not understand`

`what the heck I was talking about and yet bemoaned the very problem at`

`length in one of his papers on the idea!`

From pg 52 of http://www.platonia.com/barbour_hrp2003.pdf "About ten years ago, I did some computer calculations to find such configurations with the Macintosh computer I then possessed. I was able to do exhaustive calculations up to N = 27, which took the computer about three days. Because the number of combinations that must be checked out grows exponentially with N, even with a modern supercomputer I doubt that calculations much beyond N = 50 would be feasible."

`BTW, it was reading this paper that opened my eyes to the NP-Hard`

`problem of Leibniz' Pre-Established Harmony.`

I thought you agree that physics (and thus time) is not primitive.

`I agree, physics (and all that it such as particles, forces,`

`matter, energy) impels cannot be ontologically primitive. But it must`

`exist nonetheless. My challenge is showing how. I start with a notion of`

`a property neutral "totality of all that exists" and consider how from`

`that ground two aspects emerge simultaneously, the physical and the`

`mental as mutually distinct dual aspects that when added together yield`

`back the neutrality. This idea is very similar to Russell Standish's`

`Theory of Nothing.`

This means that they can and need to be explain from non temporal notion. Arithmetic is the bloc mindspace.

`Is it a Singleton? Can it be exactly represented by a Boolean`

`Algebra? I see 'mindspace" as one half of the dual aspects.`

There is nothing more dynamical than the notion of computations, yet,they have been discovered in statical math structure.

`Mathematical objects are the epitome of static objects. I think`

`that this view of math is blinkered. A description of a dynamic process`

`may be static, but the evolutionaly Becoming aspect is still there, just`

`hidden. Just as a photograph acts to freeze a moment in time...`

This is made possible as the statical sequence 0, 1, 2, 3, ...reintroduces a lot of quasi-time notion, and it is explained how someof them will play the role of the "observable timing of events"locally, by relative numbers.

`This is where you make the mistake. You are assuming that the`

`ordering of numbers *is* the dynamic. I claim that the ordering of`

`numbers *is a representation* of the dynamic. We should be very careful`

`when we identify the map with the territory! I agree that there are`

`situations when there is an exact isomorphism between map and territory,`

`but that is only in the case of automorphisms and fixed points.`

`We can use sequences of relative numbers, surely, but only when the`

`conditions to define them occur. We cannot assume that the properties of`

`relative numbers exist in the absence of the means to define the`

`"timing", "locality" and "relations" required.`

-- 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.