In a message dated 05/29/2000 7:49:09 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 

>  > > Could we please resolve our differences simply by
>  > > saying that observer- moment is the same as "I
>  > > think?" Thank you.
>  > I think I am going to withdraw this offer.
>      Good, I'd have rejected it.

But you DID take it, as you say below:

>  Au contraire, what you experience is an
>  observer-moment. 

So you admit that the observer moment is to be experienced, precisely what I 
said about the "I." Are you saying that the first step in understanding the 
world  is subjective? If you do, then we agree: "I think" = observer-moment = 
subjective experience.

Brent says:
>  >>  The question is, "Can observers exist in a wabbity world?".

If the world was wabbity 
then some elements of the world would exist with absolutely no reason at all. 
Furthermore the world would be irrational and inconsistent. Inconsistency of 
the world would make the drive for completeness irrelevent. There could be a 
wall around the world with absolutely no justification for this wall (back to 
the Middle Ages before Copernicus). My earlier post deriving the existence of 
the Plenitude using the rationality of the world as a starting point would be 
irrelevent and therefore irrationality would preclude the need for the 
Plenitude.  The Copenhagen school would actually advocate the simplest 
approach to QM. Observers brains would be governed by wabbity physical 
processes and would therefore be partially or totally incoherent. All you MWI 
groupies would be nuts (which actually may be the case already for some of 
you) and would better disband.


Reply via email to