Dear Bruno,

  I do not understand something. Your idea seems to me to be a very
sophisticated and yat sneaky way of reintroducing Newton/Laplacean absolute
time and/or Leibnitz' Pre-established Harmony. I recall reading how much
Einstein himself loved the idea and was loath to give it up, thus
motivating his quest for a classical grand unified field theory. Physics
has moved on...

You recently wrote:

"The only "time" needed for the notion of computation is the successor
relation on the non negative integers. It is not a physical time, as it is
only the standard ordering of the natural numbers: 0, 1, 2, 3, etc.

So, the 3p "outer structure" is very simple, conceptually, as it is given
by the standard structure, known to be very complex, mathematically, of the
additive/multiplicative (and hybrids of course) structure of the numbers
(or any object-of-talk of a universal numbers).

That is indeed a quite "static" structure (and usually we don't attribute
consciousness to that type of thing, but salvia makes some (1p alas) point
against this)."

Let me try to clarify how I am confused by this claim.

How many different versions of the integers "exist"?

AFAIK, there can be only One and it is this *One* that acts as the "time"
(maybe) in your argument for all other "strings" of integers.

Are the "strings" distorted and/or incomplete "shadows" of the One?

Are we permitted to use the allegory of the cave here? :-)

How many "shadows" are there and how are they "distinguished" from each
other such that the notion of a computation is not lost?

  In my work I have found that theoreticians in computer science completely
take for granted that a computation is a process that can only occur in the
absence of randomness. Imagine if the atoms making up the CPU of your
computer where to suddenly start changing their positions and states due to
outside interactions in a random/uncontrolled way?
   No computation would occur! In fact, this is the situation that we find
when, for instance, the cooler fan fails and the CPU overheats. My point
here is that the string of states that is a von Neumann computation is
something that has to be separable and/or isolated to be able to be said to
"occur" or -to use the Platonic metaphor- "exist". So, what exactly is
separating the "strings of integers" from each other and the One, such that
we can coherently discuss them as actually being computations and not just
"representations of computations"?


Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

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
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to