Comments below, please. John M ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 8:16 PM Subject: Re: Belief Statements
> Hi Russell: > > My dynamic in part produces worlds that appear to have time as a property > but also produces all kinds of worlds that have no time in the sense of > there being any ordered sequence. There are also "worlds" that are just a > single kernel that is given physical reality in a manner commensurate with > the features of the dynamic. > > Hal > > > At 07:40 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote: (Russell Standish) > >A compromise on these two views occurs through my assumption of "Time" > > being a necessary property of observerhood. Sure atemporal worlds > > exist, but there's nobody in them to observe them. Similarly, Hal > > Ruhl's dynamic process is simply the process of observation. > > > > Cheers (R.St.) > > ---------------------------------------------------- Russell seems to restrict 'observerhood' to timed worlds (maybe: humans?) ("there's nobody in them to observe them"). I leave 'observation' open to ANY absorption of information, in 'our' sense or otherwise. I don't 'deny' existence to formats we have no idea about. We just don't know. Hal (above) mentions dynamic, in our usual sense, a sequence in time, as a property of the world (the one (kind?) we live in). Reference to "ORDERED" sequence, ordered as we have it (in time). I mentioned several times (!) tha one problem I struggle with is how to fashion 'change' in an atemporal system? where the 'from' and 'to' are not fixed? This seems to be beyond our imagination - however I don't deny its existence (see above). Our 'model' of the 'world' disallows these variations, but - that's where the reductionistic models fail to represent the wholeness (totality). Sciences are reductionistic, so I accept the reply that my idea is not "scientific" (in today's definitions of the sciences). JM