Re: There are no observers, and no moments

From: Alastair Malcolm <amalcolm.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:25:31 -0000

----- Original Message -----
From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> The problems arise from the concept of 'observer moment' - which implies
> that there is an observer (false assumption No.1) and that there is time
> (false assumption no.2). If we use the terminology, 'idea' or 'thought'
then
> the problems vanish.
>
> Nothing is simpler than saying:
>
> 1. Everything exists (it's simpler that way, minimal Kolmogorov
complexity)
> 2. This thought therefore exists
> 3. Weak Anthropic Principle: only 'why do I exist'-type thoughts ask 'why
do
> I exist', so we should not be suprised, when we ask 'why do I exist' that
we
> are experiencing a 'why do I exist' type thought - rather than any of the
> others that exist in the plenitude.
>
> The rest is technical...

It seems to me that the potential problems that I have mentioned can readily
be recast in 'thought only' terms. For example, you currently have a thought
corresponding to a perception of a vdu in front of you, together with
thoughts of a coherent past life - how can this orderliness be explained?
Also, how is the complexity of the thought process itself to be explained,
without invoking physics? And also to be explained would either be how the
measure of isolated thoughts could come to be higher than the equivalent
thoughts occuring as part of the conventionally accepted physical world, or
else how 'everything' could somehow *exclude* ordinary physics.

Alastair
Received on Tue Feb 01 2000 - 12:41:50 PST