Saibal Mitra wrote: > 1) looks better because there is no unambiguous definition of "next". > However, I don't understand the "shared by everyone" part. Different > persons are different programs who cannot exactly represent the > "observer moment" of me. > > As I see it, an observer moment is a snapshot of the universe taken by > my brain. The brain simulates a virtual world based on information from > the real world. We don't really experience the real world, we just > experience this simulated world. Observer moments for observers should > refer to the physical states of the virtual world they live in. Since > different observers live in different universes which have different > laws of physics, these physical states (= qualia) cannot be compared to > each other.
How do you know they live in different universes? The great agreement among observers is what leads us to believe in an objective world. It appears that it is more economical (both ontologically and algorithmically) to explain the agreement by supposing there is an objective world as described by physics. In which case the observer moments are derivative from the objective world - that's what makes it a more efficient hypothesis. Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
