Brent Meeker writes:> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:57:15 -0800> From: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: ASSA and
Many-Worlds> > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:> > Brent Meeker writes:> > > > >
> > OK, but that means "observer moments" are not fundamental and the>
Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
> OK, but that means "observer moments" are not fundamental and the
> "illusion" of their continuity may be provided by the continuity of
> their underpinning. But I don't see how a strictly stepwise discrete
> process as contemplated in the
Le 29-janv.-07, à 00:11, Jason Resch a écrit :
> Thanks, that was an interesting read. I find it surprising how many
> people find MWI so disturbing, perhaps it is the pessimists always
> assuming the worst is happening. Instead of focusing on the good or
> bad, I look at the variety it pro
Le 29-janv.-07, à 06:07, Tom Caylor a écrit :
>>
>>> My above questions are perhaps a bit rhetorical in
>>> this sense. �I think the answer is that we long to find meaning
>>> solely
>>> through science so that we can control everything, and so we *try* to
>>> erect science as the god over all m
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
>
> > Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 21:57:15 -0800
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: ASSA and Many-Worlds
> >
> >
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > Brent Meeker writes:
> > >
> > > > > > OK
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :
>
>
>
>> OK, but that means "observer moments" are not fundamental and the
>> "illusion" of their continuity may be provided by the continuity of
>> their underpinning. But I don't see how a strictly stepwise discrete
On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit :
>
>
>
> > Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >> Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical
> >> universe.
>
> > Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don'
Hal, a decade ago I 'read' your text easier than now: you firmed up your
vocabulary - gradually out of my understanding. Sorry.
*
You seem to accept 'observer moments' and their interaction - even postulate
one variable needed.
How long is an OM? a million years (cosmology) or a msec? Even if it
Bruno Marchal writes:
> Le 28-janv.-07, à 20:21, Brent Meeker a écrit :>> > OK, but that means
> "observer moments" are not fundamental and the > > "illusion" of their
> continuity may be provided by the continuity of > > their underpinning. But I
> don't see how a strictly stepwise discrete
Brent Meeker writes:
> > > I don't disagree with that. But that means that a conscious, 1st > > >
> > > person, pair of experiences, i.e. pair of numbers can have no order > > >
> > > other than the inherent order of the numbers. And if an experience > > >
> > > corresponds to just a number,
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
>
> > > > I don't disagree with that. But that means that a conscious, 1st
> > > > person, pair of experiences, i.e. pair of numbers can have no order
> > > > other than the inherent order of the numbers. And if an experience
> > > > correspo
Brent Meeker writes:
> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:> > Brent Meeker writes:> > > > > > > I don't
> disagree with that. But that means that a conscious, 1st> > > > > person,
> pair of experiences, i.e. pair of numbers can have no order> > > > > other
> than the inherent order of the numbers. And
12 matches
Mail list logo
