On 3/11/2011 7:24 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Hi Andrew,
The answer to the simple question that you see that all of this
detail leads to is that at its core, Existence is Change itself.
Becoming is the fundamental ontological primitive., just as Bergson
argued. This is the result that Hitoshi discovered and discussed in
his Inconsistent Universe Paper in terms of the truth value of the
total Universe being in an infinite oscillation between True and
False. Bart Kosko also obtained a similar result in how research on
Fuzzy sets. What Barbour really found is that there does not exist
a universal */global /*standard of measure of this change.
I think Einstein found that long before Barbour. There's no time-like
Killing vector field in an FRW universe, so there's no universal time.
If there is no standard then there is not a determination of
definiteness for the Total Change of existence and thus there is no
global measure of change. Since time can be defined in generic terms
as a measure of change, Barbour is correct in claiming that time as a
global quantity cannot exist.
What Barbour missed, as have countless others, is that/* local
measures of change can be defined*/. The fact that there is more than
one measure of entropy is a huge clue of this.
Thermodynamic entropy has always been relative to whatever is taken to
be the constraint (constant energy, constant pressure,...) In the
Everett interpretation evolution is always unitary and the Boltzmann
entropy is constant.
Brent
Chris Hillman
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFcQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkist.web.elte.hu%2Fdokumentumok%2FSurvey%2FINFORMACIOELMELET%2FHillman_entropy.pdf&rct=j&q=chris%20hillman%20entropy&ei=duZ6TefXBYnC0QG-zq3wAw&usg=AFQjCNETdjj-Hv57uqqPDKsopCAfc5NHYw&sig2=Y6eBWQsu5T6Y_VoCcwbD_g&cad=rja>
has mapped out some of this. The main reason, I believe, that this
fact continues to be overlooked is that people still insist on
thinking of time as a scalar numerical/geometric quantity. Yes, it can
be represented consistently as such, but we must not confuse a
representation with its referent! Time itself is not its representation.
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
