At 9/13/01, you wrote: >Yes, words like "alternation" and "succession" definitely imply that time >is involved. But you are saying that this is a timeless >construct (like Platonia of the multiverse) ? > >Charles
Time as I understand the usual usage involves the concepts of fixed cycles measured by a clock and potentially reconstructible histories - example: why does time have an arrow if each "law" of physics is symmetric to time reversal [ The behavior of some subatomic "particles" aside.] I do not see how these concepts are compatible with the postulate. I have to admit that I miss the reference to "Platonia". Hal
