On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 05:08:39PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > OK, proper time is taken from SR and applied only locally, so the > concept is not ruled out by GR. The problem is still that you have > simply introduced a time parameter out of thin air. If you are to > have time in the picture, it must emerge from the timeless > bitstrings, and you have given no account of how this might happen. >
I think you are imposing a requirement for theory completeness I do not impose myself. After all, my theory is not a "theory of everything", but a theory of "Nothing". You are right, that ultimately, we would like to know how subjective time arises - whether it is via Barbour's time capsules, or some other stitching of observer moments, or the natural connection between machine states during a computation in a computationlist account. However, my approach is - OK - we're probably not going to solve this problem any time soon - so let's just assume that psychological time is necessary, and see where that takes us. That is my TIME postulate. If the results are nonsense, then we need to reexamine the various assumptions. So far, they're not nonsense. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Senior Research Fellow [email protected] Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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.
