--- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > You still haven't defined 'the observer'.
> I did.
Liar. You still haven't.
> "I think" is both faith and fact - assumption
> and experimentally data.
> My approach requires one single assumption:
>
> 1) I am a conscious observer. (I "think").
>
> This is the basis for the relativistic view of the
> world and the existence of
> other observers and of the world follows from this
> basic assumption.
>
> I think therefore I am (By definition)
> I am therefore the world is (Anthropy)
> The world is therefore the Plenitude is (Acausality:
> Unless there is a reason
> for something NOT to exist then it does)
> The world is therefore other observers like myself
> are. (Acausality)
>
> Come to think of it YOU haven't defined observer
> DEPENDENTLY of your basic
> objective absolute world view.
>
> The (your) objective absolute view of the world
> requires three assumptions:
> 1) There is an absolute objective world
> 2) This world gives rise to conscious observers
> 3) I am one of the conscious observers.
>
> Occam would certanly not vote for your approach
As far as I can tell, you (with assumptions)
derive 1) and 2) from 3) in the above. Well, I derive
1) and 2) from 3), so the difference is not apparent
there. Of course I would say 3) --> [1) and 2)] is
trivially obvious. (If 3) is true, 2) is true by
definition.
1) is true because NOT(nothing exists) --> 1), and
3) --> NOT(nothing exists).)
> > > However, their own measure RELATIVE TO
> > > THEMSELVES is unity.
> >
> > Just one problem with that: it doesn't make
> > any damn sense. Measure is measure.
>
> Yes it doesn't make any sense if you refuse to look
> at it from the first person point of view! We are
> going in circles.
You accuse me of being unable to see the small
picture. I say if there is a small picture, it must
be consistent with the big picture. So my beliefs
about the world should be consistent with the big
picture, which has a measaure distribution.
> A FRAME OF REFERENCE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE
> THE SAME FOR ALL.
Which is why you'd better smarten up and drop the
'FOR' bullshit when talking about measure
distributions that are objective features of reality.
I don't want to see that kind of foul language here
again. (Not 'bullshit', which refers to the
fertilizer deposited by a fine animal, but the obscene
'frame of reference'.)
> > Given the physical laws we
> > know, there is no reason a being can't come into
> > existance just due to thermodynamic or quantum
> > 'random' events. It's just not very common, to
> > say the least.
>
> Yep, it's not very common to say the least.
> According to some theories, the
> Big Bang is just a quantum fluctuation. Not very
> common to say the least. How
> do we explain it? Classical QT just says it happened
> - no cause. The AUH says
> it must happen just because everything happens.
Even MWIQM says it must happen.
> Third person point of view exclude White Rabbits.
> First person point of view
> demand them! Look at all the billions of anthropic
> coincidences that occured to make YOUR life
> possible, starting with the Big Bang
Anthropic - that's the point. If there is only
ONE way for us to exist, we must see that one way.
The case I mentioned is much more enlightening
because there were TWO possible ways for the being to
exist - 1) Darwinian evolution such as we see on Earth
from the fossil record, 2) coming into being from a
sudden fluctuation.
The main difference between 1) and 2) is that
M[1] >> M[2]. Thus it is not surprising that we see
1) instead of 2) - if we believe in an objective
meaasure distribution M, which does not refer only to
an individual. (A particular individual either is
just of type 1, or of type 2.) Without M, there is no
way to explain it, so you can't explain it. Well I
don't think the fact that we see 1) is a coincidence.
> The logical links are just imaginary. I use them to
> explain how consciousness flows from point to point.
> You are on the right track when you say that we can
> "start out with the points, and then for any series
> of points that constitute a rational conscious
> experience, draw links between them."
If they are just imaginary, then there can be no
such "flow". The latter is also imaginary, and I
dispose of it.
=====
- - - - - - -
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/
Received on Thu May 04 2000 - 17:20:33 PDT