> Russell Standish
wrote:
> > > With my TIME postulate, I say that a conscious observer necessarily > experiences a sequence of related observer moments (or even a > continuum of them). To argue that observer moments are independent of > each other is to argue the negation of TIME. With TIME, the measure of > each observer moment is relative to the predecessor state, or the RSSA > is the appropriate principle to use. With not-TIME, each observer > moment has an absolute measure, the ASSA > > That's an interesting idea, although I do have some problems with it. If one completely specifies the state of an observer at a given time, then this already contains a notion of time as experienced by the observer. So, I would say that the notion of an abserver moment is more like that of a tangent space in General Relativity than that of a single space-time point. Saibal -------------------------------------------------
Defeat Spammers by launching DDoS attacks on Spam-Websites: http://www.hillscapital.com/antispam/ |
- Many worlds theory of immortality Saibal Mitra
- Re: Many worlds theory of immortality aet.radal ssg
- Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Stathis Papaioannou
- Re: Many worlds theory of immortality John Collins
- Re: Many worlds theory of immortality Stathis Papaioannou
- Re: Many worlds theory of immort... George Levy
- Which is Fundamental? Lee Corbin
- Re: Which is Fundamental? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Which is Fundamental? Stathis Papaioannou
- RE: Which is Fundamental... Lee Corbin
- Re: Which is Fundamental... Bruno Marchal