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.
> -----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' -
> > doesn't mean their is any objective significance to our endeavour.
> > Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be
> > 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
> 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.