ok, I guess I wasn't every clear about my theory. I noticed that some people were misunderstanding what I was saying. I find it hard sometimes to express my thoughts into written text. Let me try to clear things up.
>From: Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >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 >"single moment". I started out by trying to understand conciousness. I realized that it was impossible to understand unless you broke it down into many parts. I visualized conciousness existing within a series of the smallest possible moments of time (plancke(sp?) time), with each moment following the other to form a smooth continuation of time. Within each of these moments, our conciousness is in a certain state, with each conciousness state being a rational continuation of the previous state. Keep in mind, there are two parts to our conciousness: a concious part and a subconcious part. So, when I talk about a conciousness state, I am talking about both the concious and the subconcious - not just the concious. The concious part of a 'conciousness state' is a single moment of a thought. Whatever happened to be filling your thoughts at that one single instant is the concious part of a conciousness state. The subconcious part of a 'conciousness state' is your subconcious understanding of yourself and everything around you at that single moment. For example, you always subconciously know who you are and what you are doing, without thinking about it. I also use the term 'observer moment' for 'conciousness state'. > >It seems you want put memories in that moment. Memories by whom and of >what ? ok. After I defined conciousness, I was able to deduce some properties each observer moment must have. I realized that in order for you to have a subconcious understanding of yourself and everything around you, you had to have an understanding of how everything around you was in previous observer moments. If you are walking down the road, for example, you know, subconciously, that you are walking (and if you tell me you don't, well, then you are special). And if, in a single observer moment while walking, you did not have an understanding of previous observer moments, then you would not know if you had just started walking or if you had been walking for a while. I also considered that subconcious understanding comes automatically when you stream many observer moments together through time. However, that is not possible because if no single observer moment has an understanding of previous observer moments, then no matter how quickly observer moments pass by, you will never have an understanding of previous ones. Each observer moment, therefore, must have an understanding of previous ones. >From that point, I logically deduced that the only way to have an understanding of previous observer moments is to remember them. So, in each observer moment, in order to satisfy your subconcious understanding, you must remember previous observer moments (subconciously). >A finite set of memories or an infinite set ? > The set of memories would be as large as the amount that you subconciously remember. >Are you saying there is a generic 'moment' from which all the others >appear, >But then why and in which way ? Once I concluded that each observer moment must have a memory of previous observer moments, it was fairly obvious to realize that to have many observer moments, each remembering the previous ones, was redundant. Each observer moment was in the same state, with a subconcious understanding of the past and everything, no matter what. For each observer moment, the experience was the same whether or not the previous observer moments happened. Effectively, whenever an observer moment passed by, it became obsolete. So, in order to eliminate redundancy, I simply assumed that none of my memories, right up to this very moment, actually happened. However, because of our perception of time, our conclusions about which observer moment really exists must constantly be renewed. Because each observer moment becomes a memory the moment it is reached, it is impossible to experience any observer moment as reality. It is easier to extrapolate that the real observer moment lies somewhere in the future. The only reason it seems as though we are going through life is because that is the way it is remembered. > >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 >you >do that again for a platonist kind of 'super-reality', then if your >subjective >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. The everything idea, or the MWI, is used to explain the universal laws, just as they are used in the 'real world'. The only difference is, rather than encapsulating the universe as the wave function as in MW, you encapsulate conciousness as the wave function, so that rather than having every possible parallel universe, you have every possible parallel observer moment. Each branch in the wave function is really a branch in memory. Because you only exist as a single observer moment, your path is predetermined, but still follows probability laws. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com