On 25 January 2014 22:21, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 24 Jan 2014, at 19:46, David Nyman wrote: > > On 23 January 2014 21:18, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The question then arises: Could the intuition of such a "multiplex" of >> random momentary filterings possibly give an adequate account of the >> myriad, ordered experiential trajectories of each and every one of "us"? >> >> >> I can't see how *that* randomness makes sense. >> It seems to me more like a conversion/emanation like in Plotinus. A back >> and forth done by the inner God between matter and god. >> > > I suspect that the use of the term "random" here has become somewhat of a > red herring. In Hoyle's original storyline, his physicist protagonist > explains that momentary states of consciousness, whomever or whatever they > referred to, could be metaphorised as self-ordering "pigeon holes" > (observer moments, more or less). It's clear from the context that he's > thinking about some sort of Barbour/Deutsch physical multiverse scenario. > > At which time wrote it this. Did he knew Everett (1957)? > > Good question. I don't know, but I have read October the First a few times, and I believe it's also credited as the first appearance of the idea of "Quantum suicide". The novel itself is rather incidental to the ideas presented, actually, which I think are covered in the foreword...
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
