Dear Hal,

It seems to me that a "global ordered sequencing" would be equivalent to Newton's idea of absolute time. As I see it all one needs is a local sequence of events - ala Leibnitz' "time is an order of sucession", and some thing that acts as a local measure of change. Together these make in a local clock that is compatible with both GR and QM.

   See: http://www.kitada.com/bina/time_XI.pdf


Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}


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

Reply via email to