Note James is also saying that there is no such thing as an objective 'you'
(other than bare instantaneous thought content). This part of the
hypothesis, at least, has severe problems (see my email of 1st Feb or
thereabouts).
Alastair
----- Original Message -----
From: Fritz Griffith <fritzgriffith.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: 10 May 2000 13:15
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 - 12:55:18 PDT