On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Stephen Paul King <
stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Jason,
>>>
>>>   You seem to be ignoring the role of the transitory that is involved in
>>> the discussion here.
>>>
>>
>> I am not ignoring it, but showing it is unnecessary to suppose it is
>> fundamental rather than emergent.
>>
>
> How, exactly, can it be emergent? Emergence, AFAIK, always requires some
> process to occur to being the emergent property. Change thus cannot be
> emergent.
>

The appearance (or illusion) of change is emergent.


> Maybe it is out minds that focus so much on the invariant, misses the
> obvious.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> The fact is that we are asking questions about things we are trying to
>>> understand.
>>>
>>
>> Right, that is good.
>>
>>
>>>  Merely stating that this is that ignores the point.
>>>
>>
>> Isn't that how explanations work?
>>
>>
>>> Where doth change emerge if it does not exist at all?
>>>
>>
>> It emerges in our minds, just like colors, sounds, emotions, etc.  There
>> is a condition known as akinetopsia in which its suffers lose the ability
>> to experience time (at least as we do). They experience the world as a
>> series of static snapshots, without conception of time or motion. One woman
>> expressed her trouble with crossing the street, and pouring a cup of tea,
>> since she couldn't tell which cars were moving or stopped, and when pouring
>> tea it seemed frozen like a glacier.  You might consider this as some
>> evidence that we owe our perception of change to some extra layer of
>> processing done by our brain.
>>
>
>
> Pushing the question back into the mind is a dodge.
>

You could say that about a lot of things, it doesn't mean it is a dodge
though.


> Where does that which drives the emergence obtain?
>
>
>From a number of things, the idea that our brain is a computation, the idea
from thermodynamics that makes access to future information possible, the
idea that the brain evolved to predict the future, the thought experiments
that show assuming past moments must disappear is necessarily unnecessary
to explain our conscious experience of change, etc.


>
>
>>
>>
>>>   This is my problem with Platonia, it has no explanation for the
>>> appearance of change.
>>>
>>
>> It can, if we don't require it to be fundamental and are willing to look
>> for explanations of it.
>>
>
> Please explain. All I get from the commentaries on Plato (I never learned
> to read Greek, sorry) is that "change is an illusion". Nevermind the
> persistence of that "illusion"! I have explained several times that it is a
> piece of cake to show how one can get the appearance of staticness from a
> domain of ceaseless change, just look for automorphisms, fixed point, etc.
>   The explanation coming the other direction is obfuscation and
> misdirection...
>

Do you think a computer can be conscious?

If yes, then do you think the experience of the consciousness within the
computer would be different if the computer existed in a block-time
universes instead of a moving-present universe?  If so, how/what would
cause the states of the evolving computer program to take a different
course in the block universe vs. the moving present universe?  If you see
no reason the computations should diverge, then you must agree the states
reached by the computer program are the same, and since they are the same
the conscious program could not behave any differently.  This includes any
realization that it is in a block-time vs. a moving-present universe.


>
>
>
>>
>> Your problem with platonia is as much a problem with special relativity,
>> because special relativity requires a four-dimensional existence, in which
>> all "nows" are equally real.
>>
>
> No, it does not. There is no coordinate system that can be defined that
> can have all planes of simultaneity mapped to it.
>

Different parts of an object can exist in different times (not a single
instant) for two different observers in the same place.  How can an older
version of this object exist simultaneously with a younger version of this
object, unless the object is a four-dimensional and exists in all its ages?
 SR proves that the present cannot be infinitely thin, and actually can be
made as spread out is as needed (given high enough speeds and large enough
distances).


> Conformally and faithfully. Nope. That is the real point of SR, there is
> no absolute space nor time.
>

That's not how Einstein understood it.


> SR does not freeze time, it merely gives us a map and compass to navigate
> our local regions.
>

It is incompatible not only with an objective present, but also the idea
that objects only exist at one instant of time. Imagine a device with two
clocks separated by a pole.  One person standing still between the clocks
says the clocks are synchronized.  Someone running to the left (and right
next to the person standing still) will say the clock on the left runs
ahead of the clock on the right, while a third person, running towards the
right, will say the left clock runs behind the clock on the right.

So simultaneously, and in the same positions, you have the left-most clock
read 12:00, 12:01, and 11:59 for each of the three observers, who each
happen to be in the same place and at the same time.  How can the future
state of the clocks exist together with the past state of the clock, if the
present is only one instant?  In this example, the "present" which contains
all that exists would have to be at least 2 minutes long to explain this
situation, but then we can make the pole even longer, and the discrepancy
of simultaneously existing clock states even greater..


>   Additionally, the arguments that try to use SR and GR assume that the
> H.U.P. doesn't exist. Pfft, can you do better?
>
>
H.U.P? Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? I don't see the relevance of it to
these relativistic thought experiments.

Jason


>
>
>>
>> Jason
>>
>>  We can point at this or that (figuratively speaking) as an explanation,
>>> but the finger that points does not vanish upon alighting on the answer.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Stephen Paul King <
>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jason,
>>>>>
>>>>>   So what is turning the "knob" on the values of y (or x)?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nothing, the whole graph exists at once, but y varies as x varies.  Why
>>>> does x=1,y=9 have to be destroyed to make room for x=2,y=11?  What does
>>>> destroying the previous state add to x=2,y=11 that wasn't there before?
>>>>
>>>> Now consider we aren't dealing with a simple line, but an equation
>>>> tracing the interactions of all the particle interactions in your brain.
>>>>  If x=1 corresponds to your consciousness in time 1, and x=2 corresponds to
>>>> your consciousness in time 2, then how would destroying the x=1 state
>>>> change your conscious state for x=2?
>>>>
>>>> Jason
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Stephen Paul King <
>>>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Brent,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    I have a persisting question. How is is that we can get away with
>>>>>>> using verbs (implying actions) when we are describing timeless entities?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>  In the same way we can say that y increases as x increases, in the
>>>>>> graph of y = 2x + 7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
>>>> .
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Kindest Regards,
>>>
>>> Stephen Paul King
>>>
>>> Senior Researcher
>>>
>>> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>>>
>>> stephe...@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 a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/7G5zm5OFT0k/unsubscribe
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Kindest Regards,
>
> Stephen Paul King
>
> Senior Researcher
>
> Mobile: (864) 567-3099
>
> stephe...@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