Stephen Paul King wrote:
> > 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?
>
There is no "previous" in the sense of previous time, only in terms of logical
antecedent. In addition, the conscious points are multiply connected and the
connections are a function of the points themselves. In other words each point could
have several priors and several successors. The structure is "web-like." (The
universe does not just splits with each Quantum event, it can also merge) I think it
best to view each points as a set of states independent of past information (i.e.,
first order Markov chain). To make sense, a transition needs only satisfy the
current states. The "past" states are irrelevant or ambiguous.
>
> > > 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.
>
Interesting.
>
> 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).
>
> >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.
>
Right!
> ...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...
Yes. This is the next step which is anthropically driven. The structure is necessary
because of the attributes of consciousness.
George
