Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}
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 link between successive observer moments and I agree. I
see this as a [local] time like change and I believe Russell does as
well. In any event we in our universe do not observe perpetual
stasis and the language of many posts naturally supports this [see
above] as I think it should. Part of my quest has been where does
this lack of observed stasis come from. The system in my model has a
dynamic derived from its simple structure. The dynamic is globally
random but nevertheless supports the idea of local ordered change
i.e. a time like local sequence of states. In my opinion a random
dynamic can not support the idea of time because there is no ordered
sequence. Therefore my system has if I am correct no global
time. On the local level some universes would also have random state
sequences and thus not be witness to time like change.
On a global scale ordered change would raise the question: Why that
ordered sequence? My model addresses this problem with a total lack
of global ordered sequencing.
Hal Ruhl
At 05:44 PM 10/9/2005, you wrote:
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 '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 was
> that 'time' is inevitable in a dynamic procedure (?)
> Since in my 'narrative' time, space, even causality
> are concepts pertinent to THIS universe and its
> perception of the order we observe and try to explain,
> are you contemplating the discussion on the
> circumstances of THIS universe? (Mind you: I don't
> deny the above terms from other universes but I do not
> restrict those (any of them) to the characteristics we
> use for ours).
>
> John M
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}
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 '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 was
> that 'time' is inevitable in a dynamic procedure (?)
> Since in my 'narrative' time, space, even causality
> are concepts pertinent to THIS universe and its
> perception of the order we observe and try to explain,
> are you contemplating the discussion on the
> circumstances of THIS universe? (Mind you: I don't
> deny the above terms from other universes but I do not
> restrict those (any of them) to the characteristics we
> use for ours).
>
> John M
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australiahttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpXOpZh7UONx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}
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 was that 'time' is inevitable in a dynamic procedure (?) Since in my 'narrative' time, space, even causality are concepts pertinent to THIS universe and its perception of the order we observe and try to explain, are you contemplating the discussion on the circumstances of THIS universe? (Mind you: I don't deny the above terms from other universes but I do not restrict those (any of them) to the characteristics we use for ours). John M --- Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Russell: > > Correction in caps and []. > > More Additional comments: > > My definition of kernel is the information necessary > to establish a > particular division of the list. This requires the > All to contain > mostly tails if my comments in my last two posts is > ok. The result > of my dynamic as I see it is that specific finite > heads are given > moments of physical reality far more often then I > originally > thought. This allows more consistent histories of > sequences of prior > states to have consistent extensions [IN ANY GIVEN > STEP] of the > dynamic. Thus evolving universes with finite > descriptions of their > states may actually predominate. > > Yours > > Hal Ruhl > > >
