Dear LizR, Creating time indexically (or otherwise) out maps to the natural ordering of integers will not work! We use some equivalent to a Godel numbering to code algorithms and distinguish them from each other, no? This break the natural order and thus making it unavailable as an absolute quotienting of the integers that can be pointed to as the order of events that is imposed from the static and timeless Platonic realm.
If we are going to use a dynamic process, when lets us one that makes sense. One example of a ontological process is found in Prof. Kitada's work where he ties to the fundamental undecidability of truth values of physical states in a universal wave function, ala the Wheeler-Dewitt equation. Louis Kauffman uses a similar reasoning in his Eigenforms. Why not just bite the bullet and drop the idea that Being is fundamental and the Becoming is some illusion? On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:26 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > On 9 January 2014 14:16, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear LizR, >> >> Tegmark's "What data feels like when it is processes" seems to require >> some ability to "tell the difference" whether it is being processed or it >> merely exists as Platonic strings of numbers, No? >> > > Hm. I'm not sure! He requires a dynamic process, while the Platonic > strings are "creating time indexically" - I'm not sure if these should give > rise to different experiences, or not. > > >> Did my hypothesis using Wheeler's Surprise 20 questions idea make any >> sense? My claim is that our shared experience of a physical world is the >> result of the demand for some level of mutual consistency upon which >> interactions between observers can obtain. If we could not agree on the >> 'basic laws" of a common background within which we have a sense of 'being >> in the world" there would be no interactions between us at all. We would >> have never overcome the solipsism problem that computations have as they >> are completely blind to physical hardware via the universality property: >> Software is invariant and insensitive to the physical hardware that might >> run it. Bruno does a good job showing this via his teleportation with delay >> argument. >> > > Yes, I would say that makes sense, but I am not sure how we do overcome > this problem. (I may need to re-read some old posts...) > > > -- > 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/TBc_y2MZV5c/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
