On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edgaro...@att.net> wrote:

> Stephen,
>
> Even worse, and less applicable to reality if it's really true, but Jason
> is clearly talking about sequences of computations, and befores and afters.
> How can sequences occur if there's no time?
>

The sequence is defined naturally by the successive states of the
computation.


> And how does time arise?
>
>
>From the first-person perspectives of the conscious entities that may arise
within those computations.


> Seems awfully unrealistic to me....
>
>
How so / what specifically do you find unrealistic?

Jason


> Edgar
>
>
> On Friday, December 27, 2013 11:11:04 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>> Dear Edgar,
>>
>>   In Bruno's Platonia there is no such thing as "time" so we can not make
>> arguments involving "cycles of time". All just "exists".
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Jason,
>>>
>>> Let me point out one fatal problem with Bruno's theory as you present it.
>>>
>>> According to you there is some single processor that runs all this UD
>>> stuff, but the truth is that in actual computational reality every logical
>>> element functions as a processor so all computations proceed at once in
>>> every cycle of time. This is the only way everything in the universe could
>>> possibly get computed. A computation here can't possibly wait for one on
>>> the other side of the universe!
>>>
>>> If Bruno's UD requires a single processor of reality it simply cannot
>>> describe actual computational reality.....
>>>
>>> Edgar
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 27, 2013 10:41:39 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:20 PM, LizR <liz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There is one point to add which I think you've missed, Jason
>>>>> (apologies if I've misunderstood). The UD generates the first instruction
>>>>> of the first programme, then the first instruction of the second 
>>>>> programme,
>>>>> and so on. Once it has generated the first instruction of every possible
>>>>> programme, it then adds the second instruction of the first programme, the
>>>>> second instruction of the second programme, and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If it did work like this, it would never get to run the second
>>>> instruction of any program, since there is a countable infinity of possible
>>>> programs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  This is why it's called a dovetailer, I believe, and stops it running
>>>>> into problems with non-halting programmes, or programmes that would crash,
>>>>> or various other contingencies...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is addressed by not trying to run any one program to its
>>>> completion, instead it gives each program it has generated up to that point
>>>> some time on the CPU.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This isn't intrinsic to the UD, which could in principle write the
>>>>> first programme before it moves on to the next one - but it allows it to
>>>>> avoid certain problems caused by having a programme that writes other
>>>>> programmes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no program with the UD encountering programs that themselves
>>>> instantiate other programs.  Indeed, the UD encounters itself, infinitely
>>>> often.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ...I think. I'm sure Bruno will let me know if that's wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> PS I like the "while (true)" statement. What would Pontius Pilate have
>>>>> made of that? :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> :-)  Good question, I haven't the faintest idea.  I could have used
>>>> "while (i == i)" but then if someday Brent's paralogic takes over, it might
>>>> fail.
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>  --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/
>>> topic/everything-list/sqWzozazMg0/unsubscribe.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Kindest Regards,
>>
>> Stephen Paul King
>>
>> Senior Researcher
>>
>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>
>> step...@provensecure.com
>>
>>  http://www.provensecure.us/
>>
>>
>> “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
>> the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
>> information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
>> exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
>> attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
>> hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
>> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
>> message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
>> immediately.”
>>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to