Lorraine Ford
(continued)
How do we solve this problem?
The problem is that no matter how fancy the equations are, a set of equations is not sufficient to represent a viable moving real-world system.
So, we can’t form a realistic view about TIME (or consciousness or free will) until we have worked out what are the differences between a set of equations on the one hand, and a viable moving system on the other hand.
SYMBOLS
What is a viable moving system? We already have viable man-made symbolic moving systems in computer systems.
Though it should never be forgotten that man-made symbols can never be standalone: the complete system must always include human beings as an intrinsic part of the system when man-made symbols are used, because these symbols only exist from the point of view of human beings.
Sadly, it is noticeable that physicists and mathematicians, e.g. physicist Anthony Aguirre, have not yet grasped the difference between a) the real world, and b) man-made symbols that merely symbolically represent the world from the point of view of human beings. They really, really don’t understand this crucial distinction, and so Anthony Aguirre ends up spouting complete nonsense about AIs.
VIABLE MOVING SYSTEMS
Nevertheless, computer systems are viable man-made symbolic moving systems.
And these systems demonstrate the difference between a set of equations and a viable moving system. The difference is in the logical connectives that need to be used (like IF, AND, OR, IS TRUE, and THEN).
Physicists and mathematicians need to wake up to the fact that, if they want to represent a viable moving real-world system, that as well as equations and numbers, they need to use logical connective symbols, where obviously, logical connective symbols would represent non-measurable aspects of the world.