Re: You're hunting wild geese

From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 18:54:46 -0700

On 01-Jun-00, Higgo James wrote:
> I really can't see why we should assume an observer. It all works fine
> without one, taking the single assumption that all OMs exist, justified on
> the grounds that that would require the minimum amount of Kolmogorov
> complexity consistent with the fact that this OM exists.

I agree that there is no need to assume an observer - but since we 'seem' to be
observers, this seeming existence of observers calls for explanation. I have
not seen your explanation for this. Perhaps you feel no explanation is called
for, but to me it seems to be a problem. The very fact that you call them
OBSERVER-moments seems to imply an observer. I think you mean what I just
refer to as thoughts (without assuming a thinker). Is it your idea that all
thoughts exist and therefore thoughts about having a personal history and about
an external four dimensional world are just some of the total ensemble which
happen to have this coherence as part of their content. If that is your idea
it is of course completely consistent and cannot be falsified - but it also
seems barren - like radical solipism. It explains nothing because it explains
everything. My approach, and I think that of others here, is that physics
already spans a large range from abstract mathematical constructs through
nueral activity of the brain. The challenge is, on the one hand explain why
just these mathematical constructs and on the other to explain how the
mathematical constructs imply consciousness (i.e. thoughts).

Brent Meeker
Received on Sun Jun 04 2000 - 14:52:44 PDT