RE: Everything is Just a Memory

From: Fritz Griffith <>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:52:14 MST

>From: Marchal <>
>To: "Fritz Griffith" <>,
>Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory
>Date: Mar, 25 Jan 00 13:03:40 +0100
>Fritz Griffith wrote:
> >>James Higgo wrote:
> >>
> >> >I don't see the need for alternative theories. And like Liebnitz's
> >>monads,
> >> >each containing an entire world, there is no need for communication
> >>between
> >> >observer moments.
> >>
> >>BM: Hard for me to swallow that literally. My question for you and Fritz
> >>Griffith: how do you define observer moment, *precisely* ?
> >
> >Well, as precise as I can make my definition:
> >
> >An observer moment is your experience of everything at a certain moment
> >lasts for a duration of one plancke-time. Your current thought,
> >understandings, knowledge, emotion - everything that makes up your
> >perception of you and your universe, concious and subconcious (in other
> >words, the exact state of your brain) is looked at in one single moment
> >plancke time.
> >
> >Now, if you can accept that an observer moment must contain the
> >of a smooth, consistant flow of time, and that it perceives to exists in
> >moment within this time, as I have been trying to explain in previous
>OK. I have an intuitive understanding of what you are saying and I am
>open to such kind of inspiration. But my demand of an explanation is far
>greater. In particular I reject anything based on any empirical
>experience and experiments except as inspiration. To be sure I accept only
>natural numbers and their effective relations. More generally
>I don't take for granted any of the following words:
><<Observer, experience, everything, moment, duration, Planck-time,
>current thought, knowledge, emotion, perception, "my", universe,
>conscious, state, brain, smooth, consistent, flow, time.>>

How can you accept anything in science if you don't accept most of these
words? Some of these words are used in many currently accepted scientific
theories. Others are words that I am definitely not taking for granted, but
rather logically and rationally explaining.

>Eventually all these world should be defined in term of arithmetical
>relations before I understand your definition.

So in other words you only accept the underlying mathematical equations that
describe a certain theory, and don't care about the possible interpretations
of those equations? I know this approach to quantum mechanics as the "shut
up and calculate" method. Personally, I believe that you're missing
something when you concentrate on the mathematics, and ignore what they
could possibly mean. I don't consider my observer moment idea a new theory
altogether, but rather an interpretation of quantum mechanics, like
Copenhagen or MW. The underlying mathematical concepts are the same.

> >- then I ask you, how do you know that you do not simply exist as this
> >single observer moment, believing, subconciously, that you actually lived
> >right up until this moment, and that in an instant that moment will pass?
>How do I know ...? I just don't know that (and with comp, I don't believe
>it either).

How is my observer moment theory incompatible with comp?


Get Your Private, Free Email at
Received on Tue Jan 25 2000 - 17:00:13 PST

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