RE: Quantum Time Travel / this very moment

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:31:57 +0100

'Cogito' is a great leap, and was Descarte's big mistake. 'there is a
thought' is self-evident. 'I think' is an unwarranted assumption and brings
in the concept of a person who is objectively associated with a series of
linked ideas.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> Sent: Monday, 15 May, 2000 6:46 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: Quantum Time Travel / this very moment
>
> 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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated. The Gerrard Group
is regulated by SFA and is a member of the London Stock Exchange.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon May 15 2000 - 04:40:12 PDT