Hi Russell, Right! The OM would be the lower bound on a duration spanning any experience.
Onward! Stephen From: Russell Standish Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:57 PM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Against the Doomsday hypothesis On Mon, May 09, 2011 at 09:17:38AM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > Having an experience includes experiencing duration and sequence. > > >Russell posited that the OM could be defined as the “state of a > >machine” in > >http://firstname.lastname@example.org/msg14307.html > > > > Why would we suppose something static, like a "state", could > constitute an OM that includes the experience of time? That's why I > think OMs are vague and the term is not well defined. I thought the whole idea of an OM was that it didn't include the experience of time. It is an atomic structure of experience. Time can only be experienced as motion from one OM to the next (via projection, for example). snip -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.