By reading what you wrote and seeing that the argument you’re making makes no sense. Specifically:
I see no sense in which your thought experiment “has no time” but “appear[s] to have time”.
No, constructing the rationals from the natural numbers doesn’t require “defining a process”, unless you understand that phrase so broadly that “defining a process” doesn’t in the least suggest temporality.
Even if you had in fact described a thought experiment in which something appears to involve time but doesn’t really, that obviously doesn’t imply that time is an illusion.
I can describe a thought experiment in which something appears to involve sausages but doesn’t really; does that mean sausages are an illusion?
Yes, I do understand the phrase ‘defining a process’ so broadly as to not suggest temporality. Just like defining an order for a set in mathematics doesn’t require the concept of time.
Indeed, just because we can show an example of how an illusion of time could be constructed in a system without time, would not seem to imply that our world is also such system.
If you understand “defining a process” so broadly as to not suggest temporality … then in what sense does your system “appear to have time”?
It is hard to see how any argument or evidence could possibly show that our perceived world is derived from (say) a universal Turing machine carrying out every possible computation. (Even if it’s true.)
This does not, in fact, show that time is an illusion.
How did you conclude with the ‘in fact’ ?
By reading what you wrote and seeing that the argument you’re making makes no sense. Specifically:
I see no sense in which your thought experiment “has no time” but “appear[s] to have time”.
No, constructing the rationals from the natural numbers doesn’t require “defining a process”, unless you understand that phrase so broadly that “defining a process” doesn’t in the least suggest temporality.
Even if you had in fact described a thought experiment in which something appears to involve time but doesn’t really, that obviously doesn’t imply that time is an illusion.
I can describe a thought experiment in which something appears to involve sausages but doesn’t really; does that mean sausages are an illusion?
Yes, I do understand the phrase ‘defining a process’ so broadly as to not suggest temporality. Just like defining an order for a set in mathematics doesn’t require the concept of time.
Indeed, just because we can show an example of how an illusion of time could be constructed in a system without time, would not seem to imply that our world is also such system.
So, yes, it doesn’t makes sense, as long as you don’t show that our perceived world is derived from a system with same properties. ( I’m referring to something like this: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/3ZdcQpJCPpE/Kwfh69V4Y24J ).
You can view everything as one thing.
If you understand “defining a process” so broadly as to not suggest temporality … then in what sense does your system “appear to have time”?
It is hard to see how any argument or evidence could possibly show that our perceived world is derived from (say) a universal Turing machine carrying out every possible computation. (Even if it’s true.)