# Re: What gives philosophers a bad name?

```
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 the subconscious. If one conceives a "subjective moment" as just what one is conscious of in "a
```moment" it doesn't encode very much of the past.  And in the digital
```
simulation paradigm the computational state doesn't encode any of it. So I think 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 person moment can
```be 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 last remark is quite interesting, and a key to grasp comp and its relation to physics. I
```think.
```
```
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.