Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Umm, let me break this down into chucks and try to see if we are
>understanding
> each other. My notion of a "previous time" was couched within a notion that is
>similar
> to J. A. Wheeler's notion of a "Surprise 20 Questions Game" and I did not state so
> explicitly. I am playing with the idea that time is a "first person" attribute and
>thus
> is not to be considered as "objective" nor absolute (as in the Newtonian sense). I
>think
> that our ideas are similar but we may have semantic differences here. ;-)
OK but I am not familiar with Wheeler's game.
>
> > [GL]
>
> > 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.
>
> [SPK]
>
> I would agree, but I would argue that we could cause some confusion if we are not
> careful. We have to distinguish the a priori possible (or probable) experiences from
> the a posteriori experiences themselves.
I don't think I follow you. There is no such a thing as "probable." All connections are
actualized albeit in different degrees according to their RELATIVE measures. We now
get into
the discussion of measure which has been endlessly debated before. Suffice to say that
I
think that while measure can be relatively different between two transitions, there is
NO
WAY to establish an ABSOLUTE value for measure because of the infinity of the
plenitude.
(i.e., Loosely speaking, if each transition has infinite measure, the only way to
compare
two transitions is to take the limit of their ratios.) Hence, relatively to the
observer,
his own measure can always be assumed to be one. This remains true as long as the
number of,
or magnitude of the adversities in his environment remains of a lower cardinality than
his
own measure. When the adversities are too severe then his consciousness stops from
propagating (being linked) to those very adverse states. It's kind of a Cosmological
Principle.
> I am exploring the idea that communication
> between observers plays an important role in restricting and/or distinguishing the
>two.
> I hope that you understand this difference between a priori and a posteriori that I
>am
> writing about. ;-)
I don't understand. In the constext of Markov chain, all the information is contained
in the
current states.
>
> > [GL]
>
> > The structure is "web-like."
>
> [SPK]
>
> Yes, I agree. I have been exploring this idea with several people for some time
> using the notions of Leibniz and Spinoza. Let me recap. Are you saying that conscious
> points (I can them them "monads" ala Leibniz) has a "web-like structure?"
>
Kind of. They are connected by a web-like set of allowed logical transitions.
>
> > [GL]
>
> > (The universe does not just splits with each Quantum event, it can also merge)
>
> [SPK]
>
> Umm, here I have a problem! You say that the universe splits and merges;
Sorry! In an effort to communicate, I was employing terms used in the popular
literature
about the MWI. I should NOT have said that the universe "splits." It's not the
universe that
splits and merge. It's our conscious flow through the interconnections between the OM
or
conscious points. Schoedinger equation really describes the spread of our consciousness
through the web.
> 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.
> We could think of the splitting and merging as local topological properties of a
> multiply connected manifold and I think that such a thought would be in line with the
> idea of first order Markov chains, but I am not sure now you are thinking about how
>the
> points are related (via transitions). It is obvious that "past states" refer to
> information that is encoded within the current state and that is what I meant by my
> statement. I think that we agree that the "past" is not something that is "out there"
> outside of the experience of the present moment. ;-)
>
I agree with this.
>
> [SPK]
>
> I am interested in your thoughts of Pratt et al's ideas. ;-)
>
Sorry. Pardon my ignorance. I don't know who Pratt is. Would he be by any chance one
of the
two guys who make airplane engines. ;-)
> >[SPK]
>
> Ok, would we agree that the anthropic principle (weak?) is true in the sense that
> any observer will have first person perspectives (experiences) that have a
>probability
> of 1 if and only if such are consistent with its existence. Also, if you are going to
> say that consciousness is a static phenomenon then could you explain how the
>appearance
> of change comes about?
In the same way a derivative describes movement while being itself static.The logical
links
would have to contain directionality information.
> Have you by chance read Julian Barbour's book The End of Time?
Sorry, I didn't have a chance.
George
