Good grief, Russell - it's just weak anthropic principle. No explanation
needed. In an infinite multiverse, 'your' observer-monet exists, so why are
you suprised that it's 'you'?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Thursday, 04 May, 2000 8:39 AM
> To: james.higgo.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: this very moment
>
> You have it your way, I'll have it mine. Until someone can compute the
> complexities of either description. Simply saying they exist does not
> explain why they are in your observer moment (more conventionally that
> they are in your memory).
>
> Cheers
>
> Higgo James wrote:
> >
> > Saying 'we really did observe them' is a lot less simple than saying
> 'they
> > exist'. Jacques and I agree, I think, that Occam is against you here.
> > James
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Russell Standish [SMTP:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
> > > Sent: Thursday, 04 May, 2000 2:19 AM
> > > To: jackmallah.domain.name.hidden
> > > Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > Subject: Re: this very moment
> > >
> > > Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > > > > There needs to be psychological time in which to
> > > > > unravel the history embedded in a single observer
> > > > > moment. Once one has psychological time, one may as
> > > > > well go the whole hog and have a complete history,
> > > > > with an infinite number of observer moments.
> > > > >
> > > > > Its an Occam thing. Nothing rules out a "Groundhog
> > > > > Day" type of effect, where we endlessly keep playing
> > > > > back a small piece of history (eg 1 day, or even 10
> > > > > seconds if you like), however I suspect this is
> > > > > a more complicated explanation (therefore of smaller
> > > > > measure) than just assuming that we live our whole
> > > > > lives.
> > > >
> > > > You were doing fine until that little word "we".
> > >
> > > I'm not sure what your point is here. It doesn't seem to relate to
> > > your following comment.
> > >
> > > > Other obsever-moments exist, but there's no reason to
> > > > insist that the ones that seem psychologically to be
> > > > in our past or future are really "the same person".
> > >
> > > Identity is based on recognition. If we recognise these other
> > > observer-moments as belonging to us, then surely the simplest
> > > explanation is that we really did observe them. I grant that it is
> > > logically possible for us _not_ to have experienced them - perhaps
> > > they were experienced by others, and implanted in our brains by
> aliens.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =====
> > > > - - - - - - -
> > > > Jacques Mallah (jackmallah.domain.name.hidden)
> > > > Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
> > > > "I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
> > > > My URL: http://hammer.prohosting.com/~mathmind/
> > > >
> > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
> > > > http://im.yahoo.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> > > Dr. Russell Standish Director
> > > High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
> > >
> > > UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
>
> > > Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
>
> > > Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --
> >
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Dr. Russell Standish Director
> High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967
>
> UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965
> Australia R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
> Room 2075, Red Centre http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
Received on Thu May 04 2000 - 00:47:04 PDT