Re: TIME warp
Are you talking about a Star Trek term or for certain space-times, the ability to go forwards or backwards in time relative to a distant observer? Ronald On May 16, 3:31 pm, selva selvakr1...@gmail.com wrote: hi everyone, can someone explain me what a time warp is ? or why there is a time warp ? well yes,it is due to the curvature of the space-time graph near a heavy mass. but how does it points to the center of the mass,how does it finds it.. and explanation at atomic level plz.. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. The OM's are just moments of subjective experience. They are continuous rather than discrete, since they can be arbitrarily divided. I am having a thought right now, but I can't say with certainty when the thought started. It may have started a nanosecond ago, even though I remember starting to count up from zero and am now at the number ten. That is, I am at the number ten but it may only be the last part, the n of the ten that I have actually thought; it's only a ten when I look back and have the false memory of counting. When I have a small thought it doesn't necessarily include memories of previous thoughts, and certainly not of my whole past life. But if that presented a problem for sequencing of disjointedly generated OM's it would present the same problem for a stream of consciousness generated by a normally functioning brain. If I have a sufficiently vague moment I may not, in fact, be aware of where, when or even who I am. When I snap out of it, I recall the vagueness, and I recall that it happened after I had a cup of coffee and before I stood up to go for a walk. But the same sequencing would have happened if the coffee, the vagueness and the walk had all been generated in a disjointed manner, and there is nothing in the experience which can indicate to me that this is not in fact what happened. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 18 May 2011, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote: On 5/17/2011 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 16 May 2011, at 19:40, meekerdb wrote: On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: [SPK] I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example, I think... I am wondering how they are strung together, to use the analogy of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a separate dimension of time to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another? Onward! Stephen I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences). It is just that if you believe that your consciousness (first person experience) is manifested through a digitalisable machine, you have to distinguish the 1-OMs from the 3-OMs. Intuitively (cf UDA) and computer science theoretically (cf AUDA). The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and discrete. I think Stathis and me share the same theory (a brain can be substituted by a (material) digital mechanism). The OMs Stathis is referring to are the 3-OMs. By digitalness they can be considered as atomic and discrete. If we start from addition and multiplication (of non negative integers) as initial universal base, the 3-OMs are numbers. Now, and here perhaps Stathis might disagree, a sequence of numbers is only a computation when it is defined relatively to a universal number, to begin by one self. The 1-OM arises from the first person indeterminacy. Our actual consciousness depends on the topology and relative measure on all equivalent states reached by all (universal) numbers. This is a non trivial structure whose mathematics can be derived from the self-reference logics + the classical theory of knowledge. As I try to explain, this gives a conceptual explanation of quanta and qualia, and, accepting also the classical theory of knowledge (Timaeus, Theaetetus) a mathematical theory of quanta and qualia. In that case they would have to be strung together by some internal reference, one to another. Stathis has the correct picture, I think. I mean correct relatively to the mechanist assumption. The internal reference is given by the logic of the self-reference. But pure internal reference makes no sense, we need both globally and locally refer to other universal number (other that oneself) to make sense of the notion of computation. But it is the self which create the past and the continuation by maintaining enough self-consistency. Stathis might just study a bit more the math of computer science, perhaps. I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of information - Computational states (3-OM) are as atomic as natural numbers. Some contains HUGE amount of information. when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Brains only change their probability of manifestation relatively to probable relative universal numbers. Consciousness is a 'natural' property of universal numbers relatively to probable others universal numbers. Those relations define an information differentiating flux in arithmetical truth. It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. If you accept mechanism, many times emerges. Many 1-times (feeling of duration), and 3-times (clock). Their logic is provably given by the variant of self-reference, which each structured the numbers in different way. Actually 1-times is given by S4Grz1 and X1*, and 3- times is given by Z1*, or slight variant if you nuance the theory of knowledge (this is the toy theology of the ideally correct Löbian number). If you reject mechanism, tell me what is your theory of mind and your theory of matter. You misunderstand. I'm objecting to the idea that a thought = a single state of a digital computation. It
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 7:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. The OM's are just moments of subjective experience. They are continuous rather than discrete, since they can be arbitrarily divided. I am having a thought right now, but I can't say with certainty when the thought started. Which is what makes the term moment misleading. It implies arbitrarily short duration; which I think is impossible. Digital computational states have no duration, but it doesn't follow that the computation corresponding to an experience does not have duration in the sense of extending over many states. It may have started a nanosecond ago, even though I remember starting to count up from zero and am now at the number ten. That is, I am at the number ten but it may only be the last part, the n of the ten that I have actually thought; it's only a ten when I look back and have the false memory of counting. Isn't that what Bruno calls last Tuesdayims? If OMs are continuous (or overlap) then that would provide a sequence and at least an implicit time. When I have a small thought it doesn't necessarily include memories of previous thoughts, and certainly not of my whole past life. But if that presented a problem for sequencing of disjointedly generated OM's it would present the same problem for a stream of consciousness generated by a normally functioning brain. If I have a sufficiently vague moment I may not, in fact, be aware of where, when or even who I am. When I snap out of it, I recall the vagueness, and I recall that it happened after I had a cup of coffee and before I stood up to go for a walk. But the same sequencing would have happened if the coffee, the vagueness and the walk had all been generated in a disjointed manner, and there is nothing in the experience which can indicate to me that this is not in fact what happened. But there is much in other experiences that indicate it did not happen that way. Are you saying you have no theory of the world and OMs, but only immediate experience which could be an illusion. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Dear Bruno, I am interested in more of your thinking on several ideas that you mention in this post. 1) The 8 hypostases as N-OM; N = 1 - 8 2) Is this physical instantiation of a 3-OM is an infinite mathematical object phrasing equivalent to saying that the physical instantiation of a 3-OM a model (in Model theory terms) of an infinite mathematical object. What is the nature of this object. 3) About the the notion that OM overlap is what is managed by the modalities distinguishing the points of views? Please elaborate on this. Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:58 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 18 May 2011, at 02:46, meekerdb wrote: On 5/17/2011 5:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: snip It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. If you accept mechanism, many times emerges. Many 1-times (feeling of duration), and 3-times (clock). Their logic is provably given by the variant of self-reference, which each structured the numbers in different way. Actually 1-times is given by S4Grz1 and X1*, and 3- times is given by Z1*, or slight variant if you nuance the theory of knowledge (this is the toy theology of the ideally correct Löbian number). If you reject mechanism, tell me what is your theory of mind and your theory of matter. [Brent] You misunderstand. I'm objecting to the idea that a thought = a single state of a digital computation. It seems to me that observer moment, OM, is used equivocally to refer to both as though they were the same thing. [Bruno] Yes, I agree. That is a very usual confusion. That is why I suggest people to always distinguish clearly the 3-OMs (computational states belonging to 3-describable computations) and the 1-OMs (which are typically NOT describable, except by reference to a notion of truth, which is itself not describable). Eventually the 3-OMs are handled by the self-reference logic G (and G*), and the 1-OMs are described by the self-reference logic S4Grz1 and X1*. It is the difference between Bp, Bp p, and Bp Dt p. The additions of p, Dt and Dt p change the logical and topological structures bearing on the OMs. I use the notion of OM because people here use that vocabulary, but it is a bit misleading. Given that there is 8 hypostases, we should distinguish the 1-OM, 2-OM, 3-OM, ... 8-OM, and even more due to the others possible arithmetical nuances entailed by the incompleteness phenomenon. If my brain or some part thereof were replaced by digital computer I think its states would be a level far below those of my thoughts (1_OM?) - just as the computational state of my neurons is below the level of my consciousness. You are right. And this is why physics is eventually transformed into a statistics on (relative) computations. Whatever is below my substitution level is multiplied into infinities, because no machine can singularize itself on one computation. We are spread across the whole universal dovetailing, or on the whole sigma_1 arithmetical truth. Those states (are those what you are calling 3-OM?) would contain far more information than that contained in the conscious part. Indeed, a real physical instantiation of a 3-OM is an infinite mathematical object (if we are machine). They would have a much shorter duration than a thought and so a thought would not be atomic, but would have parts that could overlap and hence provide the experience of time. I agree. The overlap is what is managed by the modalities distinguishing the points of views. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Mystics often distinguishes the little ego from the higher self. Memory, and, usually, many bodies and things are needed for the little ego, but I am not sure memory is needed for the higher self- consciousness. But this might be a word play. It is possible that consciousness is always the same as higher self-consciousness. In that case the (little) ego-consciousness appears when the higher self *forgets* its status, and begin to identify itself with the memories and the many things it believes it owns. Bruno What, you ask, was the beginning of it all? And it is this ... Existence that multiplied itself For sheer delight of being And plunged into numberless trillions of forms So that it might Find Itself Innumerably (Aurobindo) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Brent, Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not necessary for consciousness, then consciousness does not require a persistent structure to supervene upon. No? Onward! Stephen From: meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:38 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Brent -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not necessary for consciousness, then consciousness does not require a persistent structure to supervene upon. No? Onward! Stephen I don't see how that follows. Require in what sense: logical, nomological,...? We know that a blow to the head can interrupt consciousness and erase memories. Brent *From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:38 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Brent -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: [SPK] I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example, I think... I am wondering how they are strung together, to use the analogy of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a separate dimension of time to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another? Onward! Stephen I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences). The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. It seems to me that the time that we experience can’t be “real” time. I don’t see how we could have direct access to time any more than we have direct access to anything else “in the world”. The time that we know must be an artifact of how we represent the world...an artifact of our model of the world...an aspect of our experience. I’m not a materialist, but if I were I would take a computationalist/representationalist view of the mind. In this view, our experience of the world would be “represented” in some information storage medium, and then changes to that representation would result in changes to our experience. What would be the mapping from the representation to any particular experience? Well, for any *change* in experience, there would have to be a change in the representation. But you can’t notice anything, can’t experience anything, *unless* there is a change in the underlying representation that would represent “noticing it” or “experiencing it”. So your awareness of time would have to be within the “bits” of information representing your experience...it could not be anywhere else. Not every change in the bits would *necessarily* equate to a change in experience - but no change in experience could occur without a change in the underlying representation. And of course change wouldn't necessarily have to happen in time. The X value of a line on a 2D graph changes with respect to the Y value...but this is not a change in time. So time would exist within experience, not external to or independent of it. Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. I tend to disagree. What is memory? Just representation in some material substrate? When you “recall” a memory into the present is it still a memory or part of the present? What about false memories? Isn’t the experience of reflecting on a memory just another kind of experience, no different really than day-dreaming about something that never happened? Rex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Brent, True, but we are trying to get out of anthropocentric constrains ( I hope!). The question is aimed at trying to drill down further into the concept of consciousness and to see if Russell’s ideas are correct (as discussed in his book) and those of Bruno by exploring their implications, a sort of attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Onward! Stephen From: meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 9:21 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, Interesting! If we follow this idea, that memory is not necessary for consciousness, then consciousness does not require a persistent structure to supervene upon. No? Onward! Stephen I don't see how that follows. Require in what sense: logical, nomological,...? We know that a blow to the head can interrupt consciousness and erase memories. Brent From: meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:38 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Brent -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Dear Bruno, How beautifully said! This is a rediscovery of ideas that we find in many mythological systems. We are God that forgot what we truly are. Onward! Stephen From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Mystics often distinguishes the little ego from the higher self. Memory, and, usually, many bodies and things are needed for the little ego, but I am not sure memory is needed for the higher self-consciousness. But this might be a word play. It is possible that consciousness is always the same as higher self-consciousness. In that case the (little) ego-consciousness appears when the higher self *forgets* its status, and begin to identify itself with the memories and the many things it believes it owns. Bruno What, you ask, was the beginning of it all? And it is this ... Existence that multiplied itself For sheer delight of being And plunged into numberless trillions of forms So that it might Find Itself Innumerably (Aurobindo) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Rex, I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as a horrid heresy by most physicists that continue to think of “space-time” as some kind of “container” that we exist in much like insects trapped in amber. Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Rex Allen Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:24 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/16/2011 7:13 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: [SPK] I was trying to be sure that I took that involves the possibility that the OMs are computationally disjoint into account. This covers your example, I think... I am wondering how they are strung together, to use the analogy of putting beads on a string. My point is that we cannot appeal to a separate dimension of time to act as the sequencer of the OMs. So how do they get sequenced? How does the information (if I am allowed that term) of one OM get related to that of another? Onward! Stephen I think they must be strung together by overlapping, since as computations I don't think they correspond to atomic states of the digital machine but rather to large sequences of computation (and in Bruno's theory to equivalence classes of sequences). The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also difficult to see how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory. It seems to me that the time that we experience can’t be “real” time. I don’t see how we could have direct access to time any more than we have direct access to anything else “in the world”. The time that we know must be an artifact of how we represent the world...an artifact of our model of the world...an aspect of our experience. I’m not a materialist, but if I were I would take a computationalist/representationalist view of the mind. In this view, our experience of the world would be “represented” in some information storage medium, and then changes to that representation would result in changes to our experience. What would be the mapping from the representation to any particular experience? Well, for any *change* in experience, there would have to be a change in the representation. But you can’t notice anything, can’t experience anything, *unless* there is a change in the underlying representation that would represent “noticing it” or “experiencing it”. So your awareness of time would have to be within the “bits” of information representing your experience...it could not be anywhere else. Not every change in the bits would *necessarily* equate to a change in experience - but no change in experience could occur without a change in the underlying representation. And of course change wouldn't necessarily have to happen in time. The X value of a line on a 2D graph changes with respect to the Y value...but this is not a change in time. So time would exist within experience, not external to or independent of it. Rex -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Rex, A very good point! There must be a place for false memories in our modal logics. Could these be included in the Bp p where the p is not necessarily true in all worlds? Onward! Stephen -Original Message- From: Rex Allen Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 1:30 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. I tend to disagree. What is memory? Just representation in some material substrate? When you “recall” a memory into the present is it still a memory or part of the present? What about false memories? Isn’t the experience of reflecting on a memory just another kind of experience, no different really than day-dreaming about something that never happened? Rex -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Rex, I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as a horrid heresy by most physicists You seem to have an uninformed opinion of physicists. The physicists I know don't consider anything heresy because they consider time and space and all of physics to be models which are invented to represent our best guesses about reality. Brent that continue to think of “space-time” as some kind of “container” that we exist in much like insects trapped in amber. Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, How beautifully said! This is a rediscovery of ideas that we find in many mythological systems. We are God that forgot what we truly are. Onward! Stephen Careful. Don't go all Deepak Chopra on us. :-) Brent *From:* Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:11 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Mystics often distinguishes the little ego from the higher self. Memory, and, usually, many bodies and things are needed for the little ego, but I am not sure memory is needed for the higher self-consciousness. But this might be a word play. It is possible that consciousness is always the same as higher self-consciousness. In that case the (little) ego-consciousness appears when the higher self *forgets* its status, and begin to identify itself with the memories and the many things it believes it owns. Bruno /What, you ask, was the beginning of it all?/ /And it is this .../ /Existence that multiplied itself/ /For sheer delight of being/ /And plunged into numberless trillions of forms/ /So that it might/ /Find / /Itself/ /Innumerably /(Aurobindo) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 10:30 AM, Rex Allen wrote: On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:38 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. I tend to disagree. What is memory? Just representation in some material substrate? When you “recall” a memory into the present is it still a memory or part of the present? What about false memories? Isn’t the experience of reflecting on a memory just another kind of experience, no different really than day-dreaming about something that never happened? Rex I don't see that we're in disagreement. Except possibly when you say memory is *just* another experience. It is an experience *of remembering* and so differs from experiences that are not memories; it is qualitatively different. Of course that is separate from the question of whether it is veridical, whether it has causal connection and similarity to some earlier experience. I think earlier can be defined in terms of the underlying computation. How that sequence relates to the sequence of experience seems to be part of the difficult question of how to recover physics from computation. I can see that earlier experiences must be encoded in the states of computation in order for them to be experienced as memories. My point was only that an experience must correspond to a sequence of computational states, not just to one (a moment) and that its information content must be very small compared to that of the underlying states. So a moment (computational state) is to short to constitute an observation (an experience). And an observation is to small (not enough information) to constitute a moment (a computational state). So observer moment seems like an incoherent and confusing term. I guess that's why Bruno resorts to 1-OM and 3-OM; but that seems to imply there a such a thing as an OM that is just looked at from two different viewpoints. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Brent, I am happy to be wrong inn that opinion! But nevertheless finding a physicists what will admit publicly what you mention is difficult. Onward! Stephen From: meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:00 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Rex, I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as a horrid heresy by most physicists You seem to have an uninformed opinion of physicists. The physicists I know don't consider anything heresy because they consider time and space and all of physics to be models which are invented to represent our best guesses about reality. Brent that continue to think of “space-time” as some kind of “container” that we exist in much like insects trapped in amber. Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Brent, Oh you bet! Chopra and those like him have not done us any favors, but can we truly begrudge people from making a buck of a book that is a soft version of the ideas we are considering? Not all people are on the far right hand side of the bell curve. Onward! Stephen From: meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:01 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Dear Bruno, How beautifully said! This is a rediscovery of ideas that we find in many mythological systems. We are God that forgot what we truly are. Onward! Stephen Careful. Don't go all Deepak Chopra on us. :-) Brent From: Bruno Marchal Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:11 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 18 May 2011, at 17:38, meekerdb wrote: On 5/18/2011 7:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: That is how meditation and dissociative drug can help you to remind the consciousness of the blanche machine, the consciousness of the virgin Löbian machine. Memories only differentiate consciousness. Are you claiming that every thought includes a memory? A memory of what? The immediately preceding thought? You lost me. I was pretending the contrary. I was with you on this. It is *because* a thought (a conscious thought) does not necessarily include a memory or a reference to previous thoughts that you can remain conscious when taking a drug which disconnect you from all memories. Ok. I mistook your point. I agree that memory is not necessary for consciousness - though I think it is necessary for self-consciousness. Mystics often distinguishes the little ego from the higher self. Memory, and, usually, many bodies and things are needed for the little ego, but I am not sure memory is needed for the higher self-consciousness. But this might be a word play. It is possible that consciousness is always the same as higher self-consciousness. In that case the (little) ego-consciousness appears when the higher self *forgets* its status, and begin to identify itself with the memories and the many things it believes it owns. Bruno What, you ask, was the beginning of it all? And it is this ... Existence that multiplied itself For sheer delight of being And plunged into numberless trillions of forms So that it might Find Itself Innumerably (Aurobindo) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 11:26 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, I am happy to be wrong inn that opinion! But nevertheless finding a physicists what will admit publicly what you mention is difficult. Onward! Stephen My friend Vic Stenger (a physicist) not only admits it publicly he has attempted to popularize it in books and lectures. I don't know of any physicist who's bothered to disagree in print. The Comprehensible Cosmos Where Do The Laws of Physics Come From? The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Nor are they somehow built into the logical structure of the universe. They are human inventions, though not arbitrary ones. They are not restrictions on the behavior of matter. They are restrictions on the way physicists may describe that behavior. In order to describe an objective reality, those descriptions cannot depend on the point of view of observers. They must be point-of-view-invariant. When point-of-view invariance is implemented, the laws of physics follow with few additional assumptions. We live in a comprehensible cosmos. Here's a review. http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/NewSciRev.pdf Brent *From:* meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net *Sent:* Wednesday, May 18, 2011 2:00 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 10:44 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Rex, I agree with you 100%! I am amazed that this idea is considered as a horrid heresy by most physicists You seem to have an uninformed opinion of physicists. The physicists I know don't consider anything heresy because they consider time and space and all of physics to be models which are invented to represent our best guesses about reality. Brent that continue to think of “space-time” as some kind of “container” that we exist in much like insects trapped in amber. Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
On 5/18/2011 11:29 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, Oh you bet! Chopra and those like him have not done us any favors, but can we truly begrudge people from making a buck of a book that is a soft version of the ideas we are considering? I can certainly begrudge a charlatan who charges money to tell people that they can recover from cancer by thinking the right thoughts. Brent Not all people are on the far right hand side of the bell curve. Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments
Hi Brent, Absolutely, but do we need to spend time chasing off the charlatans? I leave it to people like Sam Harris and James Randi to do that. OTOH, we must be careful that we are not imposing an authoritarian regime upon the world such that only “authorized” persons can put form ideas and ask ontological questions. ;-) Onward, Stephen From: meekerdb Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 3:17 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: On the Sequencing of Observer Moments On 5/18/2011 11:29 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Brent, Oh you bet! Chopra and those like him have not done us any favors, but can we truly begrudge people from making a buck of a book that is a soft version of the ideas we are considering? I can certainly begrudge a charlatan who charges money to tell people that they can recover from cancer by thinking the right thoughts. Brent Not all people are on the far right hand side of the bell curve. Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
