You are putting forward a circular argument: - A must follow B because law X says so - X is a law because we always observe that A follows B 'Laws' are not an objective feature of reality. James
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 4:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Everything is Just a Memory > > James Higgo writes: > > Nothing links two observer moments objectively. It is only we who say > 'ah - > > that moment must follow this one, to satisfy our laws of rationality' - > that > > doesn't mean their is any objective significance to our endeavour. > > > > Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be > is > > this very idea. > > It seems to me there is objective connection between observer moments, > based on the laws of physics and state evolution. If state B follows > from state A by the time evolution described by a simple set of laws, > it can be said to be linked to A. > > This approach says nothing about observers per se. One state of a flowing > river can be linked to another if the one is the time evolution of the > other. > > Time is an objective phenomenon, just like space, and the simplest laws > of physics which describe our universe will include the notion of time. > Once you have time and space you can objectively define the continuous > evolution of system state over time. This lets you objectively link > observer moments, when the systems involved are observers. > > Hal
