Re: Quantum Time Travel

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:45:55 EST

In a message dated 02/27/2000 12:50:18 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jqm1584.domain.name.hidden writes:

>
> > IF the frame of reference in RELATIVITY interaction is the
observer
> > state itself
> > (by definition)
>
> Here you define "frame of reference" to mean an observer
> state. Again, I don't like that language, but OK.
>
> > THEN the so-called objective point of view is really a subjective point
of
>
> > view
> > thus upholding SUBJECTIVITY (by definition)
> > (Note: Observer state include not only physical state but also
> mental
> > state)
>
> This is the one that doesn't make any sense. Of course, it's
> false. The objective description of a system is not an observer state
> within that system. Your above definitions don't seem to have any bearing
> on your claim, either.

It would be a pity to give up now. We are so close. We are now touching the
issue about the tree that falls in the forest and there is no one to see or
hear it. Except that now the forest is the plenitude itself.

Let me try to expand on my last post.

The way I understand your concept of "objective reality" is a reality which
does not necessarily contain any observer to be "real."

Let's proceed by Reductio Ad Absurdum. Let us define an "objective reality"
as a SUBSET of the Plenitude as seen from a frame of reference which DOES NOT
CONTAIN ANY OBSERVER.

Remember the following very important key fact: the way I define "point of
view" and "frame of reference" includes the MENTAL states of the observer.
Therefore, if there was such an objective frame with no observer, such a
frame would not include any mental states and therefore would be UNTHOUGHT
and actually UNTHINKABLE SINCE NO OBSERVER COULD REACH IT! And if an observer
did reach that frame, then the frame would cease to be objective since it
would contain the observer.

Thus any attempt to define such an "objective reality" is misguided and
pointless. How could such a frame be defined when we cannot even think about
it? What would be the value of such a point of view since there would be no
one to see it or even to think about it? What would make this point of view
special? Why should such an unobserved point of view be more real than an
observed one?

I will grant that the only objective reality is the Plenitude itself with the
proviso that it is unthinkable. By "unthinkable" I mean that no observer can
have a mental representation of the plenitude, no matter how smart he is, for
the simple reason that the plenitude contains him. Saying that the plenitued
is the objective reality, however, is not of much value since it contains all
possibilities. It is like saying that an all white or balck canvas contains
all the masterpieces of the greatest painters.

I repeat what I said before. The only reality that has any meaning and value
and that makes any sense is a subjective one.

George Levy
Received on Sun Feb 27 2000 - 23:49:43 PST