Dear Hal,

   Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?


----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers

Hi Lee:

At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:


Where I join you (in failing to understand) is what happens as
the OM becomes of zero length.  I did not say *the limit as
it becomes zero*, I said "zero".  It's almost as though some
people take this as license to suppose that time is not a
necessary ingredient or even that time does not exist:


The dynamic I speak of in my approach can give instantations of "being" to the preexisting states in many ways. For example: isolated states, all states a universe contains simultaneously, and clusters of states that would be closely coupled in a succession string of states. As "being" moved within the system the last example would be like a pulse of "being" with some non zero pulse width over the dimension of successor states for a particular universe. This might be a model for consciousness, thinking, continuity, observation, time, etc.

Hal Ruhl

Reply via email to