Re: History-less observer moments

From: Fred Chen <flipsu5.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 22:06:26 -0700

Higgo James wrote:

> The 'why me?' thought is associated with other thoughts, and I'm not curious
> about what those other thoughts are. All thoughts exist, so the question of
> why this not that is silly: it's just a matter of random sampling of OMs to
> use Jacques's terminology.
>
> I don't include or exclude an 'ordinary physics universe'. If you look at
> things from the right perspective you will see an 'ordinary physics
> universe' so in that sense it exists. Objectively, it does not.
>
> >

I think we are ratholing here. The point of contention has become the objective experience.
James does not apparently subscribe to it; the physicists do, perhaps due to their training,
while George and Russell have balanced between subjective and objective ('1st and 3rd person').

I do believe one needs an objective framework (math, logic) against which concepts can be judged
valid or invalid. Concepts such as that expressed by "a dropped object falls under gravity."

Fred
Received on Fri May 19 2000 - 22:14:41 PDT