Hi Stephen:

I will not be able to fully respond for a few weeks. The idea of Being having a pulse width in the dimension of closely coupled states such that several successor states simultaneously have a degree of Being is new to my understanding of my model but still inherent in my model and went unnoticed by me for awhile. In partial response to your post using the picture of a boundary having width was a quick way of picturing the idea - it may not be the best.


Yours

Hal Ruhl

At 04:56 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,

   Please forgive my delay in replying.

----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers


Hi Stephen:

At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal,

   Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?

Stephen

Let me try it this way:

1) All possible states preexist [Existence].

[SPK]

   I state this in a more all encompasing way: Existence (Dasien) Exists.


2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the All/Nothing system and must resolve the incompleteness - this repeats endlessly] that passes states from the outside to the inside of an evolving Something [There are many [infinite] simultaneously evolving Somethings - due to the repeats] [Becoming].

[SPK]

OK, then it would seem that you take Becoming as fundamental, subordinate only to Existence, to give rise to "dynamic" of the system. Being then is the case where the dynamic/evolution has the form of a fixed point:
x = f(x).


3) The boundaries of the Somethings bestow instantations of reality to states as they pass through the boundary [Being].

[SPK]

Here you are identifying the boundaries as the "Being" aspect. Could this "boundary" notion be the complement of the fixed point aspect? If we look at the topological requirements for the existence of a fixed point in some collection of points/states/phases/whatevers, we find that a boundary is required. Thus, tentatively, my proposal passes muster.
   What do you think?


4) The width of the boundary determines the pulse width of Being over the dimension of closely coupled states [continuity etc.]

[SPK]

I have a problem with the idea that a boundary can have a "width". How can that which differentiates the "inside" of a collection/set/class/category from its complementary "outside" have a width, unless we are assuming some kind of "fuzzy set"? I am not dismissing the idea out of hand, but I would appreciate some elaboration of this idea.

Kindest regards,

Stephen


Reply via email to