- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Fritz Griffith <fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:49:58 MST

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

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:49:58 MST

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.

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'.

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.

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).

The set of memories would be as large as the amount that you subconciously

remember.

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.

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

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*