Stephen Paul King wrote:

> > Logic just like phycical laws is not abolute. It only exists in the mind of
> > the beholder. So a transition is logical only if it makes sense for the
> > consciousness which experiences it. And a consciousness experiences such a
> > transition only if it makes or can make sense of it.
>     Would it be possible to elaborate on this? Could it be that for a transition
> to "make sense for the consciousness that experiences it" such a transition must
> not contradict any other previous experience?

There is no "previous" in the sense of previous time, only in terms of logical
antecedent. In addition, the conscious points are multiply connected and the
connections are a function of the points themselves. In other words each point could
have several priors and several successors. The structure is "web-like." (The
universe does not just splits with each Quantum event, it can also merge) I think it
best to view each points as a set of states independent of past information (i.e.,
first order Markov chain). To make sense, a transition needs only satisfy the
current states. The "past" states are irrelevant or ambiguous.

> > > But I certainly wouldn't claim that for my own train of thoughts.  Also
> > > I don't see how transition and simultaneity can be defined until time
> > > is defined.
> >
> > Time and space are not defined yet. The only thing that is defined so far is
> > a logic and an associated consciousness. So a transition is just an
> > unidirectional logical arrow from this conscious point to another conscious
> > point. Time is an experience emerging from the unidirectionality of these
> > arrows.
>     Some have argued that the time, in the sense that it can be considered as a
> transition of the physical state of a system, is the dual of the logic. See:
> Additionally, I think that we should
> distinguish the different aspects of time. There is the notion of time as a
> measure of change, time as an order of succession and time and time as a
> directed transition.


>     If you are considering the aspect of time that is an order of succession,
> then I would agree, but I believe that Brett (?) was considering the directed
> transition aspect. By the way, space is definable as the order of co-existence
> (Leibniz).
> >Let's define third person perspective as
> > one shared by observers occupying the same logical/physical laws frame of
> > reference as well as having the same set of contingencies on their
> > existence. They will experience the world in the same way and therefore have
> > the illusion that their perception of the world is absolute when in fact it
> > isn't.
>     I agree with this definition of the third person perspective! Note that if
> each observer has their own "time" and "space" which is their first person
> perspective, then the third person perspective is the intersection of many first
> person perspectives.


> ...each OM is connected to other OMs
> > by unidirectional logical arrows formulated according to a logic of which is
> > a characteristics of the OM themselves.  Thus each OM defines its own
> > allowed set of transitions.Time is an emergent experience resulting from
> > these arrows. Conscious flow is a static phenomenon, EXPERIENCED BY EACH
>     I think that we need to find a way of defining the act of experiencing
> itself! Several philosophers have argued to that experience involves a
> correlation or synchronization of sorts between "external" and "internal"
> attributes. Your statements would imply, then, that a "point" has some kind of
> "internal" structure...

Yes. This is the next step which is anthropically driven. The structure is necessary
because of the attributes of consciousness.


Reply via email to