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 time. - - - - - - - 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/