RE: "Time" and my proposed model

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:32:28 -0800

In response to a question:

In my opinion random change is not dependent on any concept of "time". Our
language does not seem to have the proper words yet.

Lets try a definition of change:

Change = {configuration(i +1) [my U(i +1)] - configuration(i) [my U(i)};
note this change is always finite, never infinitesimal.

Note that U(i +1) and U(i) are just finite strings of bits. A pair of
counting numbers. Their difference is just another counting number - no
units at all.

No part of the configuration changes except at the i to i +1 shift which
occurs at random.

There is no master clock ticking away in the background.

The concept of a cyclic subsystem that could act as a clock is actually not
permitted in the model because there can be no cuts.

It is therefore necessary to completely divorce the concept of change from
the unnecessary concept of "time".

Hal
Received on Sun Nov 12 2000 - 21:42:22 PST