I'm going to jump into the fray and say that I agree with Levy here.
Perhaps I am more or less repeating what he said, but if you imagine any
possible universe in the plentitude, you are imagining it from the point of
view of an observer. It is impossible to imagine a universe outside of the
observer viewpoint. Even if you are imagining random, swirling colours in
empty space, you are still imagining that universe from an observer
viewpoint. The fact that in reality you cannot survive in empty space is
irrelivant to the fact that in that universe, you do exist in empty space,
watching the swirling colours, even if you do not exist in physical form.
Because all imaginable possible universes include the observer, then to
believe in universes that do not include an observer would require the
assumption that universes exist in the plentitude that we can't even
imagine. This could very well be possible, but it does not make sense to
assume these universes exist when we cannot even imagine them. All
imaginable universes are accounted for if you assume that they must contain
an observer.
>From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden
>To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
>Subject: Re: Quantum Time Travel
>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
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Mon Feb 28 2000 - 15:07:00 PST