>From: Marchal <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
>To: "Fritz Griffith" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>Date: Jeu, 20 Jan 00 12:27:13 +0100
>
>Fritz Griffith wrote:
>
> >It is easier to extrapolate that
> >the real observer moment lies somewhere in the future.
>
>Is it the same "real observer moment" for each of us?
>Where does that "real observer moment" come from ?
>And what is it ?
If you accept that conciousness can be split up into many different observer
moments, then the real observer moment is just the only observer moment that
you actually experience. All the rest are just memories of the real one.
Of course, all possible observer moments do exist in the plentitude, but
none are actually linked to each other.
>
>Where does your "future" come from. Most of us doesn't take time
>for granted.
Neither do I. In fact, my entire theory suggests that time does not exist.
My definition of the past is that which an observer moment remembers
(conciously or subconciously), and the future is that which an observer
moment does not remember. This is where my linked-list structure of memory
comes in. The illusion of time comes from the fact that not only does an
observer moment remember many previous observer moments, but it remembers
which observer moments each of the remembered ones remember. So, observer
moment C might remember observer moment A and B, but it will also remember
that observer moment B only remembers observer moment A, and that observer
moment A will remember neither of them. So, even though there is only one
real observer moment, our future is entirely depentant upon which remembered
observer moment you are referencing. Our future in relation to a given
remembered observer moment are those remembered observer moments that the
remembered observer moment you are referencing does not remember (that is as
simple as I can say it). So our future is actually memories of the real
observer moment, just like the past, except that they are observer moments
that aren't remembered by the current one (which is also a remembered
observer moment). Our life 'ends' when we reach the real observer moment,
although it never really ends because there is no such thing as time. All
of the real observer moment's memories happen all at once, independant of
time, and each of these memories include a perception of where it is in
time, based on that memory's memories.
I should also add that as far as I can tell, there is no possible way to
know which observer moment is the real one.
As for, "is it the same real observer moment for each of us": as I said
before, everything in the universe, including other people, do not really
exist, and are just memories. So, other people are really 'zombies'.
However, because all possible observer moments exist in the plentitude,
there is an observer moment that correctly corresponds to everyone you see.
So in a sense, the conciousness of everyone around you does exist, even
though it is not actually connected to what you see. Are all real observer
moments the same? Of course not. That is like saying that all universes in
the wave function of MW are the same.
>
>Have you read that insightfull book by Oliver Sacks ``the man
>who mistook his wife for a hat".
>He describes in it people who have lost their hypocampus. That is the
>part of the brain which transform short term memory with
>lon term memory. The apparent effect is that they are trapped in
>one single observer moment (which is rather long, +/- 5 to 10 minutes).
>That guy at the age of 50 still believe that he was 20 age old.
>You could explain him what happened, but then after 10 minutes you
>must explain him it again, and again ...
>How will you figure his experience with your "theory"?
I don't really understand the condition you are trying to explain here,
although I doubt it has much to do with my observer moments theory.
>
> >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.
>
>OK. This is somewhat similar, at first sight, with the many-history
>interpretation of QM.
>
>Your theory is interesting but very very vague, IMO.
Damn. I'm explaining it as best as I can. I don't know how to say it any
better.
>
>You could help us in comparing your approach with some most ``traditional"
>approaches among those discussed in this list (SSA, AP, Everett,
>Leslie-Bostrom, Tegmark, Schmidhuber-comp, Mallah-comp, Standish's
>justification of OCCAM,
>Higgo "measure-less" Buddhism, and others...).
The problem is, I don't know most of these approaches. But here goes:
SSA - you can assume that you are a single sample within the entire
plentitude of observer moments. The reason there are physical laws is
because of the same laws of probability that govern MWI. BTW, I would
disagree that the Strodinger equation is derived due to the WAP. The WAP
cannot explain the physical laws - only the constants within the laws of
physics. If the WAP governed probability alone, you would see chaos to the
brink - but not quite to the point - of an inability to survive.
AP - what is that?
Everett - I've already compared my theory to MW.
Leslie-Bonstrom - All I know is they talk about the doomsday argument. The
doomsday argument does not apply with my theory, because there is no such
thing as death (not to you, at least).
Tegmark - he suggests an expansion of the MW, I think. My theory would
compare here the same as in MW.
Schmidthuber,Mullah-comp - I don't know the specifics of each of their
theorys. As for comp in general, I believe that a turing machine could
still theoretically exist to emulate conciousness.
Standish's OCCAM - don't know that.
Higgo's Buddism - Higgo doesn't believe in measure, but I do. Other than
that, I have a feeling that we both have very similar theories.
>
>My feeling is that with your "single observer moment" you will
>miss (put under the rug?) the measure problems, like James Higgo ...
As I said, the measure problems are the same whether you use MW or my single
observer moment theory.
>
>
>Bruno
>
>
>
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Fri Jan 21 2000 - 13:29:32 PST