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)
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 

Reply via email to