Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-07 Thread M.A.
- Original Message - From: "Günther Greindl" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time > We need only turing emulability, because quantum states, > although not copyable, are "preparable" (in the quantum "prepare

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-07 Thread Thomas Laursen
PS. If the two-dimensional cartoon man has something to say about mathematics or logic, I would certainly listen, but his intuition, "common sense" and and experienses I would rather smile at :) Maybe somebody is smiling at me right now? or laughing? I hope not ;-) --~--~-~--~~---

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-07 Thread Thomas Laursen
OK, and thanks Bruno. I thought MW more or less presumed a block universe without time, but apparently this is yet uncertain. Abram, > If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we experience > "moving" in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember > the past and not th

Re: Boltzmann Brains, consciousness and the arrow of time

2009-01-07 Thread Günther Greindl
Hi Bruno, thanks for your comments, I interleave my response. >> showed a glimpse of the vastness of the UD. And, I agree, _in the limit_ >> there will be an infinite number of histories. So, as we have to also >> take into account infinite delay, we must take this limit into account >> and have

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Jan 2009, at 20:18, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> 2009/1/6 Abram Demski : >>> Thomas, >>> >>> If time is merely an additional space dimension, why do we >>> experience >>> "moving" in it always and only in one direction? Why do we remember >>> the past and not the

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-07 Thread Brent Meeker
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2009/1/7 Abram Demski wrote: > >> I would not deny causality in such a universe so long as the logical >> structure enforces the Life rules (meaning, the next level in the >> stack is *always* the next life-tick, it couldn't be something else... >> which is true by s

Re: KIM 2.3 (was Re: Time)

2009-01-07 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
2009/1/7 Abram Demski wrote: > I would not deny causality in such a universe so long as the logical > structure enforces the Life rules (meaning, the next level in the > stack is *always* the next life-tick, it couldn't be something else... > which is true by supposition in the block world). > >