Re: Quantum Time Travel / this very moment

From: <GSLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:46:18 EDT

In a message dated 05/04/2000 5:19:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jackmallah.domain.name.hidden writes:
  
> --- GSLevy.domain.name.hidden wrote:

> > 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.
> >
> 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.

NO, you did not get it. You did not go far enough. 3) has to be extended
beyond "I am one of the conscious observer" by one more step: "I THINK."
Thus the logical chain of derivation is:

"I Think" (defines the frame of reference and is the only undisputed
experiencial/experimental fact. All other thoughts and observations derive
from that one. This is the starting point resembling James Higgo's assertion
that all is one observer moment.)

-> I am (Definition) ( I am one of the conscious observers)

-> The world is (Anthropy)

-> The Plenitude is (Acausality)

I repeat. You must begin with "I think." In computationalist terms "I think"
encompasses all the axioms and rules of the conscious computation.
And this is precisely the frame of reference.

I maintain that, because you must begin with "I Think," you do not have any
evidence of an objective absolute world and you cannot prove that measure is
absolute.


>> 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.

Talking to you, Jacques, about Frames of References (FOR), is like discussing
garlic recipes with Dracula.


> > 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.
>
You don't even know what "real" is. The whole point is that our experience of
self is imaginary.






>In a message dated 05/06/2000 11:39:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
flipsu5.domain.name.hidden writes:
  
> First person would seem to refer explicitly to the perceived self in the
> observer moment, while 3rd person is otherwise?

According to my definition, (other people may have other definitions) first
person probability of observing a particular event corresponds to the
conditional probability of observing that event given that the observer
remains alive to observe it. Third person probability is the probability that
this event is observed by an observer whose life is not affected by the
occurence or non-occurance of the event. Quantum suicide provides an example
of first/third person probability. The first person probability of seeing the
suicide weapon misfire is unity. The third person probability of seeing the
weapon misfire is very low. Events that are instrumental to our existence are
first person events, for example, the Big Bang.


George
Received on Sun May 14 2000 - 22:49:41 PDT