I have been asked a question as to the nature and use of "time" in my model.
In step 20 of my 10/31/00 post I said: "20) Since the recursion steps need not take place in any fixed pattern "time" would be an illusion of SAS." I do not see objective time as a part of the answer, and have not for some rather large number of our universe's recursion steps. However, since all recursively enumerated universes in my model change configuration in finite steps and not infinitesimal ones it is easy to see a SAS becoming focused on a subjective time. At least one SAS [humanity] has defined time based on an invariant repetitive cycle in an isolated physical system. The very idea in my opinion is absent any logical support at all. As to the nature of the larger embedding system, I am trying to make what I see as a logically important point. You can not "prove" a single origin. If you can show that you have argued yourself to a bifurcated set of origins then all of your argument may be logical. My approach is: either Nothing or Everything continue [stable], or they do not continue [unstable]. I argue that neither has the strength of argument to exclude the other as the origin [as I think it should be] and that both are logically unstable. They do not continue. They must change into something else which might continue. This something else in my model is the same in both cases and I call it a Superverse. It continues. Because it is neither Nothing nor Everything it can have a dynamic. In my opinion a dynamic imbedding system is essential. My Superverse continues in a condition of random change as its dynamic. This continued change launches the rest of my argument. Such change is not the same as what we have in the past called time. The changes I focus on are definitely not repetitive. Therefore my approach would not imply an objective "time", but it does explicitly contain continued non repetitive change. Notice that my argument contains the idea of "continues" Yes or No. So does: "The Plenitude continues? Yes.". Hal
