Hi Russell and John:

The simplest response is that in many of the discussions on this list there runs a current of what I see as a level of systemic change. There are for example computers computing, or observers observing. Russell proposes [as I understand it] that there is a degree of link between successive observer moments and I agree. I see this as a [local] time like change and I believe Russell does as well. In any event we in our universe do not observe perpetual stasis and the language of many posts naturally supports this [see above] as I think it should. Part of my quest has been where does this lack of observed stasis come from. The system in my model has a dynamic derived from its simple structure. The dynamic is globally random but nevertheless supports the idea of local ordered change i.e. a time like local sequence of states. In my opinion a random dynamic can not support the idea of time because there is no ordered sequence. Therefore my system has if I am correct no global time. On the local level some universes would also have random state sequences and thus not be witness to time like change.

On a global scale ordered change would raise the question: Why that ordered sequence? My model addresses this problem with a total lack of global ordered sequencing.

Hal Ruhl

At 05:44 PM 10/9/2005, you wrote:
Yes - you have put finger on exactly where I feel most uncomfortable
about Hal Ruhl's ideas. Over to you Hal :)

On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 12:02:38PM -0700, John M wrote:
> Hal and Russell (and whoever is interested),
> in this dialogue - which I don't feel like
> participating in - the word 'dynamic' is frequently
> applied. Without going into more involved theories
> where the term 'lives', the dictionary meaning is like
> procedure involving a force or similar. My notion was
> that 'time' is inevitable in a dynamic procedure (?)
> Since in my 'narrative' time, space, even causality
> are concepts pertinent to THIS universe and its
> perception of the order we observe and try to explain,
> are you contemplating the discussion on the
> circumstances of THIS universe? (Mind you: I don't
> deny the above terms from other universes but I do not
> restrict those (any of them) to the characteristics we
> use for ours).
> John M

*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                                    0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02

  • Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction} Hal Ruhl

Reply via email to