Dear Hal,
Please forgive my delay in replying.
----- 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].
[SPK]
I state this in a more all encompasing way: Existence (Dasien) Exists.
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].
[SPK]
OK, then it would seem that you take Becoming as fundamental,
subordinate only to Existence, to give rise to "dynamic" of the system.
Being then is the case where the dynamic/evolution has the form of a fixed
point:
x = f(x).
3) The boundaries of the Somethings bestow instantations of reality to
states as they pass through the boundary [Being].
[SPK]
Here you are identifying the boundaries as the "Being" aspect. Could
this "boundary" notion be the complement of the fixed point aspect? If we
look at the topological requirements for the existence of a fixed point in
some collection of points/states/phases/whatevers, we find that a boundary
is required. Thus, tentatively, my proposal passes muster.
What do you think?
4) The width of the boundary determines the pulse width of Being over the
dimension of closely coupled states [continuity etc.]
[SPK]
I have a problem with the idea that a boundary can have a "width". How
can that which differentiates the "inside" of a
collection/set/class/category from its complementary "outside" have a width,
unless we are assuming some kind of "fuzzy set"? I am not dismissing the
idea out of hand, but I would appreciate some elaboration of this idea.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
