On 21 Jan 2014, at 19:27, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
Again you avoid the question. You need to give everyone a clear and
convincing reason in English.
Rhetorical trick, and you don't answer to the question that I asked
you. I gave everyone the proof, and I told you that the UD Argument,
which presuppose only that a brain is a machine at some relevant
level, entails that there is no motion, only dream of motion. The
physical reality emerges from the coherence, or co-consistence of
infinities of dream.
Just requoting some abstract mathematical proof won't suffice unless
you can prove it actually applies.
Read the UDA before, if only to give me one light on your theory.
If there is really a way to get motion from stasis
Like if anyone was pretending that ... (rhetorical trick again).
you should be able to simply state the core of the argument in plain
English.
That's the UDA.
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...
Indeed nothing moves at the ontological level. Things move only from
the 'dreamer's mental perspective".
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.
Indeed? So you assume primitive moving, and thus a primitive time, and
thus UDA shows that you are implicitly using the assumption that your
p-time is not Turing emulable.
Indeed, if we recompute Julius Caesar' brain state, with comp, he will
live Antic-time now, which might directly show that your notion of p-
time is inconsistent with comp. This is coherent with your absence of
definition of your computational space.
It's still just a sequence of cartoon frames which are obviously
completely static. A static motionless observer sees them as a
motionless sequence. Only an ACTIVELY MOVING reader of the cartoon
can provide the apparent sequence of the cartoon frames that makes
them meaningful. But of course actually both observer and universe
are actively moving as they are continually being recomputed in the
present moment of p-time....
If the sequence seems to move it's only because that cartoon reader
is already moving himself. So without a moving observer rather than
a static "1p" observer, to use your terminology, there can be no
motion. Unless the 1p observer is himself alive and moving there can
be no motion in his perspective. There is simply no way around that.
You reify "reality". And this without saying. That's unconvincing
pseudo-philosophy.
Just answer the question: can we survive with an artificial brain in
your theory?
Bruno
Edgar
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:27:59 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 17:34, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Bruno,
You continue to avoid the actual question. How does a static reality
of all true arithmetic in Platonia actually result in change and the
flow of time? You just claim "everyone knows it".
Where. I just said (see below) that "everybody knows it" is never an
argument. You misread me. On the contrary I said that I can explain
it, but then it is long. Then, I point on the literature, and
mention that the fact that arithmetic is Turing complete is known by
experts.
Do you agree that arithmetic emulates all computations? I guess not.
Until you can give a convincing answer to that your theory can't be
taken seriously.....
By who? I have never have any problem with that. On the contrary,
most physicists already believe that the theory of relativity go in
that direction (even more so in Gödel's solution of Einstein's GR
equation, with looping time.
I can give you an answer, except I am not sure you will study it. I
will explain it to you when you answer the questions I asked about
your theory. What does it assume, and how do you use it to prevent
the UD Argument to proceed?
Just claiming that different observers have different perspectives
on that reality doesn't make those perspectives active, they would
still be static.
Seen from the big picture (arithmetical truth) you are right. Seen
from the perspective of the internal creatures, you are wrong, at
least in the sense, that those creatures have all reason to infer
time and space, etc. They will talk about that like you and me.
Do you think that a machine can distinguish "being a living person
inhabiting on Earth", and "being a living person on Earth" emulated
on some computer, or in arithmetic.
And of course block time has the exact same problem....
"of course" is a symptom of lack of argument.
You are just looking at the 3p picture, and not at the 1p views of
the entities in that 3p reality. You could as well say that a brain
has no relation with consciousness, as there is no 1p sensations
observed when we look at a brain. But comp associates consciousness,
including consciousness of time to the 1p that we can as
...
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
