Right! The OM would be the lower bound on a duration spanning any
From: Russell Standish
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:57 PM
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
> 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,
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
For more options, visit this group at