ok, I guess I wasn't every clear about my theory. I noticed that some
people were misunderstanding what I was saying. I find it hard sometimes to
express my thoughts into written text. Let me try to clear things up.
>From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
>
>I'm not sure I understand your statement. Even if you take the word
>"moment" as some primitive, I don't figure out what you mean by
>"single moment".
I started out by trying to understand conciousness. I realized that it was
impossible to understand unless you broke it down into many parts. I
visualized conciousness existing within a series of the smallest possible
moments of time (plancke(sp?) time), with each moment following the other to
form a smooth continuation of time. Within each of these moments, our
conciousness is in a certain state, with each conciousness state being a
rational continuation of the previous state. Keep in mind, there are two
parts to our conciousness: a concious part and a subconcious part. So, when
I talk about a conciousness state, I am talking about both the concious and
the subconcious - not just the concious. The concious part of a
'conciousness state' is a single moment of a thought. Whatever happened to
be filling your thoughts at that one single instant is the concious part of
a conciousness state. The subconcious part of a 'conciousness state' is
your subconcious understanding of yourself and everything around you at that
single moment. For example, you always subconciously know who you are and
what you are doing, without thinking about it. I also use the term
'observer moment' for 'conciousness state'.
>
>It seems you want put memories in that moment. Memories by whom and of
>what ?
ok. After I defined conciousness, I was able to deduce some properties each
observer moment must have. I realized that in order for you to have a
subconcious understanding of yourself and everything around you, you had to
have an understanding of how everything around you was in previous observer
moments. If you are walking down the road, for example, you know,
subconciously, that you are walking (and if you tell me you don't, well,
then you are special). And if, in a single observer moment while walking,
you did not have an understanding of previous observer moments, then you
would not know if you had just started walking or if you had been walking
for a while.
I also considered that subconcious understanding comes automatically when
you stream many observer moments together through time. However, that is
not possible because if no single observer moment has an understanding of
previous observer moments, then no matter how quickly observer moments pass
by, you will never have an understanding of previous ones. Each observer
moment, therefore, must have an understanding of previous ones.
>From that point, I logically deduced that the only way to have an
understanding of previous observer moments is to remember them. So, in each
observer moment, in order to satisfy your subconcious understanding, you
must remember previous observer moments (subconciously).
>A finite set of memories or an infinite set ?
>
The set of memories would be as large as the amount that you subconciously
remember.
>Are you saying there is a generic 'moment' from which all the others
>appear,
>But then why and in which way ?
Once I concluded that each observer moment must have a memory of previous
observer moments, it was fairly obvious to realize that to have many
observer moments, each remembering the previous ones, was redundant. Each
observer moment was in the same state, with a subconcious understanding of
the past and everything, no matter what. For each observer moment, the
experience was the same whether or not the previous observer moments
happened. Effectively, whenever an observer moment passed by, it became
obsolete. So, in order to eliminate redundancy, I simply assumed that none
of my memories, right up to this very moment, actually happened. However,
because of our perception of time, our conclusions about which observer
moment really exists must constantly be renewed. Because each observer
moment becomes a memory the moment it is reached, it is impossible to
experience any observer moment as reality. It is easier to extrapolate that
the real observer moment lies somewhere in the future. The only reason it
seems as though we are going through life is because that is the way it is
remembered.
>
>How would you link your single observer-moment and the everything idea or
>the plenitude idea?
>
>ok, you answer that in another post:
> >Yes, everything possible did happen - but none of it is linked in any
>way.
> >Just because another event COULD logically follow from a different one,
> >doesn't mean it does. It just simply isn't necessary, for reasons I gave
>in
> >my original post.
>
>Hume said that a long time ago, about a putative 'real causality'. But if
>you
>do that again for a platonist kind of 'super-reality', then if your
>subjective
>single moment has *any* power of explanation, the everything idea get
>disconnected from it and looses its power of explanation.
>This will lead to some form of dualism, or I misunderstand you completely.
The everything idea, or the MWI, is used to explain the universal laws, just
as they are used in the 'real world'. The only difference is, rather than
encapsulating the universe as the wave function as in MW, you encapsulate
conciousness as the wave function, so that rather than having every possible
parallel universe, you have every possible parallel observer moment. Each
branch in the wave function is really a branch in memory. Because you only
exist as a single observer moment, your path is predetermined, but still
follows probability laws.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Tue Jan 18 2000 - 20:51:43 PST