On 16 January 2014 19:00, Stephen Paul King <[email protected]>wrote:
> Dear LizR, > > One thing that this line of thinking that I am pursuing implies, is that > systems what have different computational capacities will have differing > "realities". The best analogy/toy model to explain this is to consider an > electron and a human. Very different. What kind of "reality" would it > experience (assuming that consciousness is not something that emerges from > complexity, as per the hand waving arguments from material monist) as > compared to the reality that humans experience? > > My definition of a reality is dependent on the notion of > communication... I digress. The point is that a space-time manifold, > mathematically speaking is defined such that it can capture the notion of > an observer whose "point of view" and inertial frame can be varied in a > continuous fashion. In this way we can canonically make claims like: the > "laws of physics" are the same for all observers, and so forth. It need not > be exactly like that. Nature might not be so smooth and continuous... It > just needs the allow for the possibility of an observer in any situation > that actually allows for observers that can have experiences and that can > communicate with other observers. If I cannot communicate with you, how > would I really know what your universe is really like? > I know where you're coming from, and as I like to say, on days with an 'R' in them I will probably agree! > >> I have to change hats sometimes. In a debate on physics, I wear my >> relativistic hat (which can be worn at any angle) and insist that we take >> account of the space-time manifold. When we get on to metaphysics, of >> course, I switch to a possibly nonexistent, or at least illusory hat... >> > > Sure! I do that too. I have a growing collection of hats. My philosophy > hat is the one that has the most signs of wear... > Hehe. Yes, I can believe that! > >>> I really really like Bruno's notion of an observer. If only we could >>> see eye to eye on the definitions of some other concepts... Such as that >>> Computation is an *action* or transformation, not a static "being". >>> >>> Yes, well that is the eternal, or at least present, "presentism vs >> eternalism" debate. Us (provisional) eternalists can't see why >> you (provisional) presentists insist on there being a need for this >> mysterious change above and beyond what a block multiverse already >> provides. Comp is just the ultimate in emergent time (riding on the >> shoulders of giants like Newton and Einstein of course - which doesn't make >> it true, of course, but does mean that it should be seriously considered). >> > > It might be possible that the debate is based on a false dichotomy. Maybe > presentism and eternalism are both wrong, based on a bad hypothesis of the > nature of time! > That is of course possible. Some have considered a time outside time, for example, especially after taking certain drugs. -- 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.
