My current thought includes a memory of writing that e-mail. This does not,
of itself, prove there is a different thought of 'I am james higgo writing
an email in the morning of 14th August'. However, as I believe everything
exists (it's simpler that way - less Kolmogorov complexity), I think it
likely to be true.
So all thoughts in what is, to you, a causal chain, do in fact exist. They
must, if all thought exist. But the causal chain itself does not exist
except in the eye of the beholder.
This implies that there is no 'you'. All there is of 'you' is this current
thought. All there is on 'me' is this thought.
May 'I' refer you to
http://www.higgo.com/quantum/middleway.htm
In which 'I' discuss this in slightly more detail.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brent Meeker [SMTP:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Monday, 14 August, 2000 5:07 PM
> To: Higgo James
> Cc: 'everything-list.domain.name.hidden'
> Subject: RE: Extra Terrestrials
>
> Doesn't your very current thought refer to your posting of 14 Aug in which
> you said you don't believe in time? Don't such references between
> existing thoughts partially order them? Do you 'believe in' this order -
> in your very current thought?
>
> Please excuse any reference to your 'past' which I may have fanatsized :-)
>
> Brent Meeker
>
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Higgo James wrote:
>
> > My approach may be barren, but yours is yelding imaginary, but
> rewarding,
> > diversity of phantasms.
> > 'death' is an event in time. So you have to believe in time to believe
> in
> > death. I don't. All that exists of 'you' is this very current thought.
> Whle
> > 'the measure of some objective George Levy' is meaningless, 'the measure
> of
> > this thought' is a vaild concept; I'm not sure what you can do to
> increase
> > or decrease that. An interesting area is the categorisation of, then
> > distribution of classes of, thoughts.
> > James
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: GSLevy.domain.name.hidden [SMTP:GSLevy.domain.name.hidden.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, 13 August, 2000 4:35 AM
> > > To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> > > Subject: Re: Extra Terrestrials
> > >
> > > In a message dated 08/08/2000 2:36:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > james.higgo.domain.name.hidden writes:
> > >
> > > > There is no objective relationship between 'your present observer
> > > > moment' and any other, let alone 'us' and 'our descendants'.
> > > > James
> > >
> > > James, you may be fundamentally right, but such relationships are
> emergent
> > >
> > > properties which we perceive and give meaning to our lives. In fact it
> is
> > > likely that our whole world is emergent from the plenitude which is
> itself
> > >
> > > void of information because it precisely has all potentialites. So our
> > > world
> > > does have information and meaning while the plenitude has exactly
> zero.
> > >
> > > Your approach is as barren as the plenitude. If we were to take it as
> a
> > > basis
> > > for discussion we wouldn't get very far. A very important question is
> > > whether
> > > measure decreases or remains constant upon death. How would you solve
> this
> > >
> > > problem?
> > >
> > > George Levy
> >
> >
Received on Mon Aug 14 2000 - 10:12:20 PDT