RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri Jan 21 09:34:22 2000

James Higgo wrote:

>Your question is, why will there be a bruno entity with the idea that 'he'
>is one moment on from 'you now'. The answer is MWI. Everything exists;
>surely you don't need persuading of that, Bruno?
>
>You then ask where my 'apparantly personal belief' comes from (or as
>Buddhists call it, the 'illusion of self'). The answer is, again, that a
>'me' with such a belief does exist in the plenitude, and it is for you to
>suggest why 'I' should not be that 'me'.
>
>Correction: I do not tell you that there is only one observer moment; just
>that we experience only one suc moment and our deductive reasoning should
>not start with the assumption that the moment is related to any others.
>
>You ask where your meaningless questions come from. Again. MWI: there are
>very many meaningless questions I suppose an infinite numbe. If there was a
>limited supply of them, this would imply that the universe was much more
>complex than it need to be - Kolmogorov, counting algorithm etc.
>
>You then ask how to derive schroedinger equation: i.e. why do
>observer-moments which incude awareness of the schroedinger equation tend to
>include the same equation? I have long argued that all laws and constants
>are products of the weak anthropic principle, as per Barndon Carter.


So you say WAP => laws of physics. I agree. My own work can be reformulate
as Weak Turing-tropic Principle => laws of physics.

But now we must do it, or at least some among us want to do it.

And the only things I say is that, in the course of trying to do that,
some measure problem(s) appear(s). (cf SSA, ASSA, RSSA, ...).
If you are able to derive Planck constant and Schroedinger
equation from WAP without using the notion of measure, please share your
derivation, or at least the principle of the derivation, with us.

>To try to put WAP in the language we are using here, the answer would be
>that the Scroedinger equation is one of our subjective ways of stringing
>together otherwise unrelated observer moments.
>
>There are no objective arrows of time, but we have invented/observed many
>subjective ones that tend to give the same answers.
>
>Now, while I claim that this is, in principle, all that is necessary to
>derive Schroedinger, ...

Necessary or sufficient ?

>... I graoan at your insistence that I explain
>'consciousness'. I deny that consciousness exists, by however you try to
>define it.

This is meaningless. I define consciousness by the number 42 (or whatever
you accept as existing), then consciousness exists.

Here you are betraying yourself! You assume implicitely some meaning
to the word consciousness, and you are telling me that, although
evrything exists, there is no place for consciousness (with your
implicit meaning) in that everything.

>There is this observer moment, and the onus is on you to
>demostrate that there is another related moment, which would be a
>pre-requisite of consiousness.

Why? I don't see why consciousness could not be present in singular
observer
moments, even if there are unrelated. I don't see it a priori.

But why do you tell me that consciousness does not exists ? What are
suffering, pleasure, serenity, astonishment, taste, hope, lonelyness,
nostalgy, terror, fear, ... without conscious subjective experience ?

(don't tell me that suffering doesn't not exist, Buddha would laugh at
you!)

And what is Fritz's theory about without consciousness ?

James, you are underestimating the subtility of your theory, or you are
overestimating my cognitive abilities.

Bruno
Received on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 09:34:22 PST