[LC]:
> Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as
> alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
> So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of
> "event" and "observer moment" can't really be said to be at
> all the same thing. (Folks like Russell and Hal have been
> using the term "OM" for years and years, and "event" has
> a pretty standard meaning in physics.) Observer moments have
> to do with something conscious (and, evidently, pretty complex).
> And of course, as Hal wrote later on, consciousness exists on
> a gray scale.
Then dare I say that any Theory based on this "restricted" definition
of OMs (happening to observers with consciousness/intelligence
"comparable" to ours) can never be as complete as a theory based on
the much simpler (and encompassing) notion of events.
Ok, the above sounds a bit arrogant on my part, but its just that when
I think of Big things like ToEs, I am much more comfortable without
the burden of assuming that I am special in some way. If it were so,
It would either be too much of a coincidence, or some act of a God
that I can never hope to explain to myself.
I can only agree to disagree by saying that any theory that explains
consciousness in terms of something more than just "interference of
events" on a HUGE scale, is pretty much the same as explaining away
coincidents as acts of a God: that unreachable, unfathomable "entity".
--
Aditya Varun Chadha
adichad AT gmail.com
http://www.adichad.com
Received on Mon Aug 01 2005 - 01:29:02 PDT