@The_Lagrangian all under the assumption that you somehow need to "physically realize" a computation
Conversation
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian this is shuffling the computation in outside causality while inner causality is preserved
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian I don't get what this bit means. twitter.com/allgebrah/stat & maybe too simple to have an inside view
Quote Tweet
Replying to @allgebrah
@ProofOfLogic @AlleleOfGene @The_Lagrangian now take [2] and one transition from [1] so that "[2], then [1]" is causally coherent
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian "[2], then [1]" is a computation that could've happened, each of its steps has indeed happened
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian If (1) is "run universe 12 steps from big bang" is "2 then 1" running 13 steps?
2
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian if you find a [2] that could conceivably happen causally-before the bang, sure
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian So I think in the first case (where we run (2) second) there's no casual connection with (1)
1
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian if it's a reversible machine, it's indistinguishable from inside the machine
2
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian at least, it's much easier to imagine for a reversible machine
1
Replying to
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian if a conscious observer exists just at the transition from 2 to 1, they won't when run separately
2
Replying to
@The_Lagrangian So if the inside view needs that broken casual structure, then it's not being simulated there.