Le 04-mai-05, à 01:53, Russell Standish a écrit :
On this list, we seem to have two fairly clear camps: those who
identify observer moments as the fundamental concept, and those who
regard relationships between observer moments with equal ontological
status.
OK. As you know I take the relationship
Reading your responses here, I don't think we have much to disagree
on. Like you, I don't need a concrete universe, with concrete time
etc. It was largely your thesis that convinced me of that. Perhaps you
confuse me with Schmidhuber too much !
I wouldn't say that time is illusionary. Illusionary
On 4 May 2005 Russell Standish wrote:
On this list, we seem to have two fairly clear camps: those who
identify observer moments as the fundamental concept, and those who
regard relationships between observer moments with equal ontological
status.
With my TIME postulate, I say that a conscious obser
I would add another point with regard to observer-moments and continuity:
probably there is no unique "next" or "previous" relationship among
observer-moments.
The case of non-unique "next" observer-moments is uncontroversial, as it
relates to the universe splitting predicted by the MWI or the ana
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:40:46PM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> I don't see how you could get anywhere if you disregard the relationship
> between observer moments. It is this relationship which allows grouping of
> different observer moments to give the effect of a continuous stream of
I believe that according to some or most participants in this list,
transitions between observer moments is representing "Time." I have also
been talking about observer moments in the past but I have always
skirted around the issue of defining them.
The concept of observer moment is not clear.
6 matches
Mail list logo
