On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:35:47PM -0500, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > Hi Russell: > > In response to Jason you wrote: > > >An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded > >in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve > >state change, > > In my model a universe is an incomplete entity [a Something or a Nothing] > within the Everything [the ALL(s) + the Nothing(s)[nesting provides the > multiplicity]] that is driven towards completeness by un-resolvable > meaningful [to that entities current state] questions that require > resolution. I suppose this constitutes a "machine". > > I wonder if these conclusions - [machines/dynamics] - indeed impose the > property of having space like aspects on the Everything in addition to time > like aspects? Further - would that in turn give it a wider "physical" > matrix? >
Its not obvious to me. What is your reasoning? > > >Of course this finite amount of time will be > >observer dependent, > > How do you mean that. I do not see that state dwell duration differs within > a given universe. I also do not see a fixed value even for a particular > universe. Sounds like you're having a bob each way here... -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
