Re: on formally describable universes and measures

From: George Levy <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 22:48:48 -0800

Brent Meeker wrote:

> A transition from one conscious point
> > (observer moment) to the next must be logical at the conscious level
> > and simultaneously at the physical law level.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by logical transition - "entailed by the
> previous theorems plus rules of inference" would be the plain meaning.

Logic just like phycical laws is not abolute. It only exists in the mind of
the beholder. So a transition is logical only if it makes sense for the
consciousness which experiences it. And a consciousness experiences such a
transition only if it makes or can make sense of it.

>
> But I certainly wouldn't claim that for my own train of thoughts. Also
> I don't see how transition and simultaneity can be defined until time
> is defined.

Time and space are not defined yet. The only thing that is defined so far is
a logic and an associated consciousness. So a transition is just an
unidirectional logical arrow from this conscious point to another conscious
point. Time is an experience emerging from the unidirectionality of these
arrows.

> But it seems that time (and space) should be emergent
> phenomena in this theory. But it the laws of physics are not uniform
> then how can time and space emerge - since they are themselves just
> symmetries of the laws.

See above

>
> Consciousness exists
> > because of the physical laws (causality), and the physical laws exist
> > because of consciousness (anthropy). This is why the world makes sense
> > and also why we don't see white rabbits.
> >
> > Propagation of the wave function is the logical linkage between
> > conscious points.
>
> Propagates thru time and space?

Propagation is THE LOGICAL LINKAGE. It does not occur in time. Time is an
emergent experience resulting from these unidirectional links.

> It appears to obey "universal physical laws" only
> > because third person perspective is an illusion supported by the fact
> > that different observers share the same logical/physical reference
> > frame.
>
> If this is supported by different observers (differentiated how?) why
> call it an illusion.

I call it an illusion because it gives credence that there is an absolute
set of physical laws, when in fact there isn't. The same could be said about
the earth. It appears to be motionless, when in fact it is moving.

> It is common experience that a single person is
> more likely to have an illusion than that a common illusion be shared
> by several persons. Hence 'the third person perspective' is not an
> illusion.

Now we are in the semantic domain. Let's define third person perspective as
one shared by observers occupying the same logical/physical laws frame of
reference as well as having the same set of contingencies on their
existence. They will experience the world in the same way and therefore have
the illusion that their perception of the world is absolute when in fact it
isn't.


James Higgo wrote:

>I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What

>is it that 'transits' ?

Nothing transits in time. Its' just that each OM is connected to other OMs
by unidirectional logical arrows formulated according to a logic of which is
a characteristics of the OM themselves. Thus each OM defines its own
allowed set of transitions.Time is an emergent experience resulting from
these arrows. Conscious flow is a static phenomenon, EXPERIENCED BY EACH
POINT THAT IS CAPABLE OF EXPERIENCING IT.

George
Received on Sun Mar 04 2001 - 22:52:11 PST