Dear George,

    If I might ask a few questions...

George Levy wrote:

> Brent Meeker wrote:
> >  A transition from one conscious point
> > > (observer moment) to the next must be logical at the conscious level
> > > and simultaneously at the physical law level.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by logical transition - "entailed by the
> > previous theorems plus rules of inference" would be the plain meaning.
> 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?

> > 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.

> > But it seems that time (and space) should be emergent
> > phenomena in this theory.  But it the laws of physics are not uniform
> > then how can time and space emerge - since they are themselves just
> > symmetries of the laws.
> See above
> >
> > Consciousness exists
> > > because of the physical laws (causality), and the physical laws exist
> > > because of consciousness (anthropy). This is why the world makes sense
> > > and also why we don't see white rabbits.
> > >
> > > Propagation of the wave function is the logical linkage between
> > > conscious points.
> >
> > Propagates thru time and space?
> Propagation is THE LOGICAL LINKAGE. It does not occur in time. Time is an
> emergent experience resulting from these unidirectional links.

    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

> > It appears to obey "universal physical laws" only
> > > because third person perspective is an illusion supported by the fact
> > > that different observers share the same logical/physical reference
> > > frame.
> >
> > If this is supported by different observers (differentiated how?) why
> > call it an illusion.
> I call it an illusion because it gives credence that there is an absolute
> set of physical laws, when in fact there isn't. The same could be said about
> the earth. It appears to be motionless, when in fact it is moving.
> > It is common experience that a single person is
> > more likely to have an illusion than that a common illusion be shared
> > by several persons.  Hence 'the third person perspective' is not an
> > illusion.
> Now we are in the semantic domain. 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.

> James Higgo wrote:
> >I agree, except that there is no 'transition' from one OM to the next. What
> >is it that 'transits' ?
> Nothing transits in time. Its' just that 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...

> George

Kindest regards,


Reply via email to