What you have written is in perfect agreement with what I have been trying
to say.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fritz Griffith [SMTP:fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, 10 May, 2000 1:16 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: this very moment
>
> James, I recently came up with a realization that I think is exactly what
> you are saying. Basically, I realized that if we accept that everything
> exists already, then why the hell do we need to bring up probability?
> Sure,
> it seems as though we live in a universe in which laws govern the way
> particles behave, but that's only because that universe is guaranteed to
> exist, somewhere in the plentitude. If we simply don't assume probability
>
> (1st person), but rather that we experience everything (3rd person only),
> then everything makes sense. There are many, many, many more universes in
>
> the plentitude that don't correspond to the laws of physics, but we
> experience all of them, including the ones that do make sense. Because
> each
> of these universes is seperate from the others (they cannot interact),
> there
> is no way of knowing of any of the others from within each one. The
> result
> is that we experience each and every universe, guaranteed, but each one
> feels like it is the only one. So we'll see things make sense (100%
> guaranteed), and we'll see things not make sense (100% guaranteed), and
> each
> of these experiences will include the lack of knowledge of the other.
>
> In other words, if experience was 3rd person only, and there was no such
> thing as first person, we would not feel like Gods looking over
> everything,
> but rather, things would seem exactly as they are.
>
> In short, every thought exists, so why should I be surprised to be having
> this thought? (as you would say it).
>
> Is this what you are trying to say?
>
> There is, of course, one problem with this theory - no one will take it
> seriously. This is because it makes no predictions, and cannot be
> verified
> experimentally or mathimatically. Basically, it isn't a valid scientific
> theory, which is too bad, because I think it makes more sense than
> anything
> else.
>
>
> >From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
> >To: "'Russell Standish'" <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>,
> >"'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
> >Subject: this very moment
> >Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:00:00 +0100
> >
> >Would someone please give me a reason why there needs to be anything more
>
> >to
> >the observer than 'this very conscious moment' ?
> >James
> > >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > --
> >
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
Received on Wed May 10 2000 - 07:07:56 PDT