[LC]: > Well, Russell did also say that OMs and events seemed to him about as > alike as chalk and cheese. It's starting to look that way:
> So, alas, it seems that the firmly established meanings of > "event" and "observer moment" can't really be said to be at > all the same thing. (Folks like Russell and Hal have been > using the term "OM" for years and years, and "event" has > a pretty standard meaning in physics.) Observer moments have > to do with something conscious (and, evidently, pretty complex). > And of course, as Hal wrote later on, consciousness exists on > a gray scale. Then dare I say that any Theory based on this "restricted" definition of OMs (happening to observers with consciousness/intelligence "comparable" to ours) can never be as complete as a theory based on the much simpler (and encompassing) notion of events. Ok, the above sounds a bit arrogant on my part, but its just that when I think of Big things like ToEs, I am much more comfortable without the burden of assuming that I am special in some way. If it were so, It would either be too much of a coincidence, or some act of a God that I can never hope to explain to myself. I can only agree to disagree by saying that any theory that explains consciousness in terms of something more than just "interference of events" on a HUGE scale, is pretty much the same as explaining away coincidents as acts of a God: that unreachable, unfathomable "entity". -- Aditya Varun Chadha adichad AT gmail.com http://www.adichad.com
