Re:this very moment

From: Fred Chen <flipsu5.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000 11:28:13 -0700

It seems we need a way to explain why observer moments are the way we
experience them. If we just say they just exist, that could be the end
of the discussion right there. But these moments have complex embedded
hierarchies of knowledge and histories which often lend themselves to
predictability.

I have some questions or responses for several of you (I tried to
maintain chronological order):

GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote (in response to Jacques Mallah):

> I assume an infinite number of observer-moments in some infinitely
> dimensional state space in the plenitude. Each observer moment is a
> point in
> that space logically connected to many (possibly an infinite number
> of) other
> observer-moments. The logical connections are anthropically
> constrained to
> insure the existence of the rational conscious experience. We could
> define a
> person as a set of observer-moment points logically linked together.
> Trying
> to define the measure of a person is like trying to find how many
> points
> there are in a given region of space. The answer: an infinite number.
> You
> could compare two regions and say that one region is larger than
> another.
> However, from the transfinite point of view, both regions contain the
> same
> cardinality of points.
> Time is an illusion brought about by the anthropically constrained
> links
> between the observer-moments.
> This approach is definitely not "classical MWI."

Are the logical connections necessary? If so, that brings us back to the
white rabbits analogy I mentioned earlier about the relative probability
of these connections.

>
>
> 4) I don't understand. Are you trying to calculate the output measure
> in a
> branch, given the total input measure? What are tau and t? I can't
> comment on
> zombies.
>
> With my method, you must distinguish between first person and third
> person
> observations. Third person observations match classical physics. First
> person
> observations do not. White rabbits do appear especially if they are
> essential
> in maintaining the existence of the observer. In our case, for
> example, the
> Big Bang which is definitely a first person event.

First person would seem to refer explicitly to the perceived self in the
observer moment, while 3rd person is otherwise?

Higgo James wrote:
>
> Would someone please give me a reason why there needs to be anything
more to
> the observer than 'this very conscious moment' ?
> James
> >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> > --

This picture is fine, but the perception of an objective reality is
clearly embedded into at least 'my' current observer moment.

Russell Standish 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.
>
> Cheers
>

I think we are on the path to assigning bitstrings to observer moments
here. This is probably good to deal with (3rd person type) white rabbits
issues.

Jacques Mallah wrote:

> --- Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
> > Jacques Mallah wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Our impression that we experienced them is
> psychological. The simplest explanation for a
> psychological tendency is never new physics!
>
> > 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.
>
> You seem quite confused. By definition, even the
> "past" observer-moments are NOT in our brains. The
> only thing in our brains NOW, that we can sense, are
> by definition aspects of the current observer moment.
> Some of these aspects are such that we conjecture the
> existance of past observer moments, and we tend to
> want to call "the observer" of "those moments" "me".
> This tendency can mislead us because it is not welldefined or
> necessary.

So it appears you agree with James to some degree here. What could be
the information content of an observer moment? Are we banking on an
eventual mathematical or computational TOE?

Fred
Received on Sat May 06 2000 - 11:39:12 PDT