Hi, Hal and Bruno,
the "T" is my problem as well (I swalloed it) because
ALL (pardon the pun) we may know is within the feeble
capabilities of our little minds and I have no right
to assume that 'nature' does not include much more
than this little segment. This is why I call whatever
I find out i
As to Relativity in my model:
Special Relativity: note that the discrete nature of the kernels means that
no motion takes place within a kernel so all inertial frames are the same
and all speeds are the same [0] thus the postulates of Special Relativity
are inherent in kernels.
General Relat
In my last I meant to identify the:
"instantations of reality bridges between successive states
[consciousness]" derived in my model with Russell's time postulate: ..."an
accessibility relationship between observer moments..." [page 99].
Hal Ruhl
As I continue to read Russell's book it seems my model has a full set of
descriptions [Plenitude], a dynamic [evolution], SAS [observers], and
instantations of reality bridges between successive states [consciousness],
and thus it would seem - if I understand the book correctly - QM.
Hal Ruhl
Hi Bruno:
At 06:04 AM 9/23/2005, you wrote:
Le 22-sept.-05, à 18:12, John M a écrit :
Bruno:
according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"?
The problem, for me, is with the "T" (both in TOE and TON).
I cannot judge. Hal's talk is still too much vague for me.
Le 22-sept.-05, à 18:12, John M a écrit :
Bruno:
according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"?
The problem, for me, is with the "T" (both in TOE and TON).
I cannot judge. Hal's talk is still too much vague for me.
I appreciate and perhaps share soime intuitions, t
6 matches
Mail list logo
