On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 5:07 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 December 2013 10:30, Stephen Paul King
>> Dear LizR,
>> On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:23 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31 December 2013 07:40, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/30/2013 1:56 AM, LizR wrote:
>>>> On 30 December 2013 20:53, Stephen Paul King <
>>>> stephe...@provensecure.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi LizR,
>>>> Sorta... I like the Theory of Nothing. It is a neutral monism that I
>> can buy, but I assume that Becoming is "fundamental": change exists at all
>> levels - this can happen when we reject a global timing scheme! The neat
>> thing is that a change is not a "thing", at best it is a transition between
>> a pair of things...
> That is exactly why it fits into a block universe. You can have two states
> and the transition between them looks (to the states) like a change.
No, that doesn't work as it ignores the "cause" of the transition. I
understand the confusion on this concept. We are used to thinking that
state transitions is a one to one map. A ->B. But think for a second: What
if I have multiple and different possible next states?
A -> B or A-> B' or A->B''
Vaughan Pratt figured out a way to do this! One allows for all possible
future states, given some current state A, then looks at each of those Bs
and asks: Which of these preserves the "truths" of A and yet is a different
state. If B' is the most logical consequence of A, given A's "facts, then
B' obtains and not B or B''. It is a local selection mechanism. We repeat
this over and over and obtain the appearance of a "dimension of time": a
sequence of events that can be mapped to the integers. We notice that this
time as a constructive process generates worlds that have a difference
between their past and future, in the sense that "I can remember by past,
but I cannot recall my future". Why? Because it wasn't computed yet.
Logic looks backwards from the future, physics moves forward from the past.
> However, you *do *assume that becoming is fundamental - clearly, and with
> no need for quote marks. If you are going to always assume this then
> obviously you will never accept any idea that tries to derive it from
> anything simpler.
Yes! There is no need for anything simpler! It does the job.
>> I have a very bad cold so my thinking/writing skills are degraded...
> Hope you get well soon!
Thank you! I really enjoy these back and forths...
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Stephen Paul King
Mobile: (864) 567-3099
“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as
attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.