George is saying an OM containing 'It is 10:30' is someohow connected to an
OM that contains 'It is 10:31'. I disagree. The two are bound to exist;
Person A might say there is a relationship between OM1 and OM2 but the
relationship only exists in Person A's own mind (more strictly, 'in OM3') .
Saying they are connected is meaningless. All things are connected in this
way. It's like attaching significance to winning the lottery.
James
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
To: <GLevy.domain.name.hidden>; <everything-list.domain.name.hidden.com>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: on formally describable universes and measures
> Dear George,
>
> If I might ask a few questions...
>
> George Levy wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Would it be possible to elaborate on this? Could it be that for a
transition
> to "make sense for the consciousness that experiences it" such a
transition must
> not contradict any other previous experience?
>
> > > 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.
>
> Some have argued that the time, in the sense that it can be considered
as a
> transition of the physical state of a system, is the dual of the logic.
See:
> http://boole.stanford.edu/chuguide.html#P5 Additionally, I think that we
should
> distinguish the different aspects of time. There is the notion of time as
a
> measure of change, time as an order of succession and time and time as a
> directed transition.
>
> > > 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.
>
> If you are considering the aspect of time that is an order of
succession,
> then I would agree, but I believe that Brett (?) was considering the
directed
> transition aspect. By the way, space is definable as the order of
co-existence
> (Leibniz).
>
> > > 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.
>
> I agree with this definition of the third person perspective! Note
that if
> each observer has their own "time" and "space" which is their first person
> perspective, then the third person perspective is the intersection of many
first
> person perspectives.
>
> > 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.
>
> I think that we need to find a way of defining the act of experiencing
> itself! Several philosophers have argued to that experience involves a
> correlation or synchronization of sorts between "external" and "internal"
> attributes. Your statements would imply, then, that a "point" has some
kind of
> "internal" structure...
>
> >
> > George
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
Received on Mon Mar 05 2001 - 13:11:57 PST