James Higgo wrote: >Bruno, you keep askimng questions about the 'self'; - eg 'all of us' - there >IS NO YOU, there IS NO ME, there IS NO US. There are just observer moments. >Your question is MEANINGLESS in this world view. > >The problem of identity is a problem because there is NO objective formula >which relates one observer moment to the next. THERE IS NO IDENTITY. > >Do you agree that the question is meaningless, given what we are saying, or >has the point not been made?
My feeling is that we agree on the fundamental ontology. I am willing to accept that there is no identity nor self, nor worlds, nor universe(s). Now, it happens that I'm quite sure that in less that one minute there is some 'bruno' entity who will strongly believe he will finish this very sentence. And indeed that happens! My question is why ? And my reasoning with comp shows that this is a highly non trivial question. In particular we cannot invoke 'physical laws', etc... My problem with You and Fritz is that I don't see quite well what you accept (or take as granted), and what you explain from that. You don't need to link the measure problem with the question of existence of the self nor with any ontological commitment. The problem is epistemological. Explain me where your *apparently* personal believe comes from. Don't tell me you have none such apparent belief. If you don't believe that you are reading an electronic post now coming from a "Bruno", then surely I am missing something. You tell us that there is only observer moment, and that my question is meaningless. I tell you that without organising the collection of observer moments a little bit (with measure, topology or whatever) you will never been able to begin an explanation of where my meaningless questions come from. >If it has not been made, I shall have to compose a detailed, simple, >explicit e-mail trying to put across the point that Fritz and I are making - >that there si no such thing as a self: there are just ideas. But what are they, those ideas. Where does ideas come from? I am saying (with comp) there is only numbers and numerical relations, but at least I make an attempt to explain why numbers dreams in realities, worlds, observer moments, ideas, selves, and why some dreams are sharable. If you can explain me how to derive (at least in principle) Schroedinger equation and the consciousness of the observer from your "observer moments" theory, I will understand you and your TOE. Bruno
