On 15 September 2016 at 05:25, Stephen Paul King <[email protected] > wrote:
> Hi Stathis, > > I really like this explanation of supervenience. I only worry that we > need a lot more detail, of how exactly "A and B are unaffected if the > timing, order or duration of a and b are changed." works. AFAIK, this > requirement looks a lot like mutual independence, but it clearly can not > be. There must be a non-zero probability of transitions within the > processes at each level of the tower, something like a 'time' at each. > Information about timing, order or duration of a and b that does not change a and b cannot change A and B either. This follows from the definition of supervenience. > > That brings me to my next question: Where do we get the inequality of > entropy when it is NOT at equilibrium for a system. Deriving an arrow of > time is not just a matter of figuring out how to chain labels in observer > moments, we need an actual transition from one state to another in our > theory. > Does anyone here have a nice explanation of Markov Processes that they > could point me to? > If there are real processes occurring in real time, this is not necessarily relevant to the supervenient mental processes. A future mental state could be computed in real time before a past mental state; it could have happened to you right now, and you wouldn't know. Thus, even if there is a real world, with real time and an arrow of time, the subjective world is timeless. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
