"Time" and my proposed model

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:45:02 -0800

I have been asked a question as to the nature and use of "time" in my model.

In step 20 of my 10/31/00 post I said:

"20) Since the recursion steps need not take place in any fixed pattern
"time" would be an illusion of SAS."

I do not see objective time as a part of the answer, and have not for some
rather large number of our universe's recursion steps. However, since all
recursively enumerated universes in my model change configuration in finite
steps and not infinitesimal ones it is easy to see a SAS becoming focused
on a subjective time.

At least one SAS [humanity] has defined time based on an invariant
repetitive cycle in an isolated physical system. The very idea in my
opinion is absent any logical support at all.

As to the nature of the larger embedding system, I am trying to make what I
see as a logically important point. You can not "prove" a single
origin. If you can show that you have argued yourself to a bifurcated set
of origins then all of your argument may be logical.

My approach is: either Nothing or Everything continue [stable], or they do
not continue [unstable].

I argue that neither has the strength of argument to exclude the other as
the origin [as I think it should be] and that both are logically
unstable. They do not continue. They must change into something else
which might continue.

This something else in my model is the same in both cases and I call it a
Superverse. It continues.

Because it is neither Nothing nor Everything it can have a dynamic. In my
opinion a dynamic imbedding system is essential.

My Superverse continues in a condition of random change as its
dynamic. This continued change launches the rest of my argument.

Such change is not the same as what we have in the past called time.

The changes I focus on are definitely not repetitive. Therefore my
approach would not imply an objective "time", but it does explicitly
contain continued non repetitive change.

Notice that my argument contains the idea of "continues" Yes or No.

So does: "The Plenitude continues? Yes.".

Hal
Received on Sun Nov 12 2000 - 17:53:37 PST