Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1998 13:06:53 -0700 Reply-To: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness <QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> Sender: Quantum Approaches to Consciousness <QUANTUM-MIND@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU> From: gordon g globus <ggglobus@UCI.EDU> Subject: Reply to Johnson on Subjective Time--Adhanom Andemicael Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Adhanom Andemicael
Reply to Johnson on Subjective Time
[Johnson previously] If you restrict yourself TO and WITHIN your dimension of "nows" you have no way to claim that a 'now' is not a 'previously' utilized or occupied 'now'. To claim otherwise subsumes a removed perspective lest 'arrow of time' (previous, subsequent, etc, etc) become meaningless.
[Andemicael previously] You are claiming that M arrives at a "now" (call it Point-A) and then arrives at this same "now" (Point-A) some time later. However, you are forgetting the critical fact that these two "arrivals" of M bear a before/after relationship to each other. (You, of course, definitely acknowledge this: you use the word "previously" in your description above.) Thus, the second "now" occurs after the first "now."
[Johnson previously] I used ' & ' around "previously" to show objectual treatment...
[Andemicael] Whether you claim objectual treatment or not--either way, the fact remains that you USE the word "previously." THE MERE FACT THAT YOU USE THIS WORD establishes an earlier/later-than relation between the "nows" in question.
[Johnson previously] ...I suggest that your persistence can just as easily choose a previously 'used' moment as its subsequent moment giving up the arrow of time completely to randomness....
[Andemicael] Persistence is a one-way linear type of motion. "Nows," as I have explained, arise from the persistence of the present. As the present moment persists ("moves"), the disparity between it and any prior "location" ("now") increases. This behavior defines "persistence." In your discussion, you negate this very property which defines "persistence." But you do not realize this, so you carry on your discussion assuming it is descriptive of a persisting present!
[Andemicael previously] ...It seems your argument for randomness cannot...be *formulated*.
[Johnson] The argument can be (and is) formulated but is based on multiple simultaneous viewpoint affirmation....
[Andemicael] As explained above, there is a fundamental fault in your "proposal" which you overlook. Understand that your "randomness" cannot be equated with the notion of "enduring."
[Andemicael] ***By definition: "nows" bear a before/after relation to each other--and two "nows" which have such an earlier/later-than relation to each other are not the same "now."
Remember, "nows" themselves arise from the phenomenon we call "enduring." (The defining feature of this phenomenon has already been noted above.)
Realize that *** is not in itself an argument (it is inappropriate to label it "circular" as you do). It is simply a statement of what "nows" are.
Once you accept the definition (***), you cannot appeal to the notion of a "revisited now" to formulate an argument for randomness. This would directly contradict the definition.
Adhanom Andemicael Andemicael@worldnet.att.net
============================================ Contributions distributed to this list are automatically archived at http://listserv.arizona.edu/lsv/www/quantum-mind.html ============================================== For information on how to customize your subscription options, or to un-subscribe, send an "INFO REFCARD" command to LISTSERV@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU. ==============================================