Conversation

Replying to

@allgebrah

@AlleleOfGene

@The_Lagrangian I don't get what this bit means. twitter.com/allgebrah/stat & maybe too simple to have an inside view

Quote Tweet

'(·)

@allgebrah

May 7, 2016

Replying to @allgebrah

@ProofOfLogic @AlleleOfGene @The_Lagrangian now take [2] and one transition from [1] so that "[2], then [1]" is causally coherent

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian "[2], then [1]" is a computation that could've happened, each of its steps has indeed happened

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian If (1) is "run universe 12 steps from big bang" is "2 then 1" running 13 steps?

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian if you find a [2] that could conceivably happen causally-before the bang, sure

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian Ah ok, I see what you meant then.

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian So I think in the first case (where we run (2) second) there's no casual connection with (1)

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian if it's a reversible machine, it's indistinguishable from inside the machine

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian at least, it's much easier to imagine for a reversible machine

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian are we talking inside-causality or outside-causality?

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian if a conscious observer exists just at the transition from 2 to 1, they won't when run separately

Replying to

@The_Lagrangian 1 and 2 are transitions, 2-1 or 1-2 is a state

9:10 AM · May 7, 2016Twitter Web Client