Hi John: I will be unable to reply for several weeks.
Hal Ruhl At 06:16 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
Dear Hal, let me know if my (naive) worldview on Stephen's question is compatible with what you wrote (below): (to1: I don't know what to do with "all possible" because it is far beyond any idea we may have. Unless we restrict the 'all' to "whatever we can think/know of). to2: In the inherent and incessant DYNAMISM (as you wrote "random"? and I still do assign random to our ignorance to find order in cases called 'random') - - to resolve the inherent incompleteness (ie. relax the stress, as I like to word it): any BEING must represent a snapshot of an inevitable and transitional BECOMING - from and into. That is in my 'wholeness' worldview. Totally interconnected, interinfluencing, interresponsive dynamism. to 3: Boundaries are constituting the 'models' of 'Somethings', restricting the observer (which I identify as ANYTHING/EVERYTHING that accepts information) from viewing the totality. I call such diversion from the wholeness a reductionism: reducing the observation into a boundary-enclosed model view. So in such case a BEING is acceptable as partial to the model. I think this agrees with your 'states' being above-model entities, as you said: "passing through the boundaries". to 4: I don't 'speculate' into reductionist detail-viewings (I have trouble enough with the wholistic formulations and once I slip into the cop-pout laxness of reductionist thinking, I lose grounds). However the "width" of boundaries you mention comes handy in the current problem I have on my agenda: How come that in the wholistic ie. unlimitedly interconnected world certain items are "more connected" than others - sort of a natural basis for model-formation? George Kampis lately called such differentiation (in evolution-thinking) a "depth" of the connection. I tried an "ideational closeness" but this is too primitive a metaphor. It emerged from my Karl Jaspers F. paper (2004) of "Networks of Networks" where the infinitely outbranching unlimited network systems still form networks and not a boundariless free floating 'grits'. Closeness came in from a visualization of interconnected networks, through how many can one get to a distnat item, which itself of course is also a network on its own. --Ideas appreciated. -- (Forgive me to burden you with my ongoing topic of so far unsolved speculations). John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM Subject: Re: The Time Deniers > Hi Stephen: > > At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote: > >Dear Hal, > > > > Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming? > > > >Stephen > > Let me try it this way: > > 1) All possible states preexist [Existence]. > > 2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the > All/Nothing system and must resolve the incompleteness - this repeats > endlessly] that passes states from the outside to the inside of an evolving > Something [There are many [infinite] simultaneously evolving Somethings - > due to the repeats] [Becoming]. > > 3) The boundaries of the Somethings bestow instantations of reality to > states as they pass through the boundary [Being]. > > 4) The width of the boundary determines the pulse width of Being over the > dimension of closely coupled states [continuity etc.] > > Hal Ruhl > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 07/06/05 > >
