Stephen, It's an error to assume that perception has anything to do with things moving. The current information state of the entire universe is continually being computed whether it's being perceived by anyone or not. Perception has nothing to do with it except apparently in the erroneous block time and UD theories which seem to claim that without things being perceived there is no motion, and that therefore there is no 'actual' motion which is anthropomorphic nonsense....
The perceptions of individual organisms are just subsets of the overall universal computation. They have nothing to do with the fact that the whole universe is being actively computed. Edgar On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:50:03 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Edgar, > > We can get to the root of the obstruction, perhaps, is the nature of > perception. If perception, physically speaking, is the mere matching > between some bit of the world to some bit in the brain (or whatever is > running the recursively enumerable functions) then this would match up with > the Block Universe concept. The representational (or numerical or > computational) picture would involve a mapping between identical bits in a > way that is parallel to the physical picture. > If, on the other hand, there is some form of irreducible transitional > action required for perception then both the Platonic notions and the Block > Universe have a fatal flaw. Real world computations do not occur in zero > time. There is a delay. In the case of humans this delay has been measured > to be between 50 and 100 milliseconds. The world you perceive is an image > of the world up to 100ms in the past. There is evidence for irreducible > time in perception. > Cogito ergo eram: I think, therefore I was. > > Computing the universe separately, as you propose, does not solve this > obstruction in the nature of perception. > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > Bruno, > > Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and > convincing reason in English. Just requoting some abstract mathematical > proof won't suffice unless you can prove it actually applies. If there is > really a way to get motion from stasis you should be able to simply state > the core of the argument in plain English. > > There simply is no way to get motion from non-motion, either in your > theory or in block time....You can look at it from any perspective you want > to but unless something moves nothing moves... > > Of course you can use the same 'cop out' that block time does when it > claims that an observer in every static frame of block time perceives a > sequence of events, but that doesn't work to move anything. It's still just > a sequence of cartoon frames whi > > ... -- 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.
