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/

Reply via email to