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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 > > >