Hi Russell:
I would change my last post and say that since tails pair with many
heads and heads pair with many tails [assuming I am right re what you
said] the most compact way to build an All is to use heads as the
kernel where ever possible.
As heads are encompassed by evolving Somethings
Hal and Russell (and whoever is interested),
in this dialogue - which I don't feel like
participating in - the word 'dynamic' is frequently
applied. Without going into more involved theories
where the term 'lives', the dictionary meaning is like
procedure involving a force or similar. My notion wa
Best to Everyone.
Thank you for the flow
Cheers,
David
Yes - you have put finger on exactly where I feel most uncomfortable
about Hal Ruhl's ideas. Over to you Hal :)
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 12:02:38PM -0700, John M wrote:
> Hal and Russell (and whoever is interested),
>
> in this dialogue - which I don't feel like
> participating in - the word 'dyna
Hi Russell and John:
The simplest response is that in many of the discussions on this list
there runs a current of what I see as a level of systemic
change. There are for example computers computing, or observers
observing. Russell proposes [as I understand it] that there is a
degree of lin
Dear Hal,
It seems to me that a "global ordered sequencing" would be equivalent to
Newton's idea of absolute time. As I see it all one needs is a local
sequence of events - ala Leibnitz' "time is an order of sucession", and some
thing that acts as a local measure of change. Together these m
6 matches
Mail list logo
