On 02 Oct 2013, at 16:03, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>wrote:On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the logic as set out. The logical structure of each subjective moment is defined as encoding its relative past and anticipated future states (an assumption that seems consistent with our understanding of brain function, for example).But then it seems one needs the physical, or at least thesubconscious. Ifone conceives a "subjective moment" as just what one is consciousof in "amoment" it doesn't encode very much of the past. And in the digitalsimulation paradigm the computational state doesn't encode any ofit. So Ithink each conscious "moment" must have considerable extent in(physical)time so as to overlap and provide continuity.But then comp is false, OK? As with comp the present first personmoment canbe encoded, and indeed sent on Mars, etc. Of course physical time need not correspond in any simple way to computational steps.OK. With this remark, comp remains consistent, indeed. That lastremark isquite interesting, and a key to grasp comp and its relation tophysics. Ithink.Could time arise from recursivity? A very caricatural example: f(x) = x :: f(x + 1) So f(0) would go through the steps: (0) (0 1) (0 1 2) ... If (in a caricatural way) we associated each step with a moment, each step would contain a memory of the past, although the function I wrote is just some static mathematical object I dug up from Platonia. Furthermore, these moments would appear to be relates in a causality sequence: (0) -> (0 1) -> (0 1 2) and so on. What do you think?

`I have not problem. Many definitions of the natural numbers proceed`

`like that, like 0 = { }, and n+1 = n union {n}.`

`You could have asked if the sequence of natural numbers does not`

`already define a sort of time, and I would have answered`

`affirmatively. Of course, as you say it is a platonic static notion`

`of time, and it is not related a priori to the physical time.`

`All computations defined a notion of time, through their notion of`

`steps, and which is inherited from the sequence of the natural numbers.`

`Physical time, on the contrary is most plausibly a quantum notion, and`

`should normally emerge (assuming comp) from the interference of all`

`computations + the stable first person (plural) points of view.`

Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.