On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Fritz Griffith wrote:
> what is it that links two observer moments? The answer: memory. ...
In a sense ...
> it is not necessary for any previous observer moments to exist
I think what you meant by that is that having memories does not
mean those memories must be true or that other observer-moments
must be the source of them. That is correct, and somewhat negates the
first statement I quoted. (e.g. faulty memories, implanted false
memories, etc.) (So really, there are no such links, but there is the
illusion of links.)
> GSLevy said that time is an illusion created by the logical linking of
> observer moments; really, though, the illusion is created by the logical
> structure of memory. All of our memories must exist within a single
> observer moment.
Yes, in the sense that memory is responsible for our sensation of
time. But I do not believe time is just an illusion. It is a feature of
our models of the physical world, except for some models of quantum
gravity, and may be needed for computation.
> Not only must we remember everything that has happened in
> our lives, but we must remember what we remembered within all of the
> remembered observer moments in order to have a perception of time.
We certainly don't remember everything.
> easiest way to do this is with a linked-list type of memory. The actually
> existing observer moment need only remember the most recent observer moment;
> the rest are automatically remembered because the memory of every remembered
> observer moment includes the memory of the previous observer moment.
> Basically, our entire lives are just a logically structured linked-list
> memory within a single moment of reality that exists independant of time.
> Let me know what you think about this theory.
I don't think that's how memory actually works at all. Some
experiences are (imperfectly) rembered; most are forgotten; and we don't
consciously rember everything at once.
It is more like, during a particular observer moment, we might
either be concentrationg on the present or on a memory. In either case,
of course, it is more complicated than that because our unconscious mind
has a big effect on what we experience.
As far as our sensation of time, I should probably point out that
most likely we don't usually think about that and for most observer
moments, therefore, it can not be said that we have a sensation of
- - - - - - -
Jacques Mallah ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Physicist / Many Worlder / Devil's Advocate
"I know what no one else knows" - 'Runaway Train', Soul Asylum
My URL: http://pages.nyu.edu/~jqm1584/