Fritz Griffith wrote:
>>Again: nothing links two observer moments. All you are and will ever be is
>>this very idea.(James Higgo)
>That is a pretty vague statement, but it sounds like we are generally coming
>to the same conclusion. I would say that because all that needs to exist is
>a single observer moment, all I am and ever will be is that single moment.
I'm not sure I understand your statement. Even if you take the word
"moment" as some primitive, I don't figure out what you mean by
It seems you want put memories in that moment. Memories by whom and of
A finite set of memories or an infinite set ?
Are you saying there is a generic 'moment' from which all the others
But then why and in which way ?
How would you link your single observer-moment and the everything idea or
the plenitude idea?
ok, you answer that in another post:
>Yes, everything possible did happen - but none of it is linked in any way.
>Just because another event COULD logically follow from a different one,
>doesn't mean it does. It just simply isn't necessary, for reasons I gave in
>my original post.
Hume said that a long time ago, about a putative 'real causality'. But if
do that again for a platonist kind of 'super-reality', then if your
single moment has *any* power of explanation, the everything idea get
disconnected from it and looses its power of explanation.
This will lead to some form of dualism, or I misunderstand you completely.
>Yes, it is easy to define the world in such a way. But what I am saying is
>that all past moments simply aren't necessary as actual reality - they can
>simply exist as thoughts. This might seem to make things more complicated
>than necessary, but in reality it makes things much more simple because time
>is no longer a factor.
I agree, although I'm not sure we share the meaning of these words.
Don't forget to tell us what a thought is and what a thought is about.
If you take 'moment' and 'thought' as primitives, give us some first
that these primitives should obey.