RE: In one page or less

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 22:34:54 -0700

At 9/13/01, you wrote:

>Yes, words like "alternation" and "succession" definitely imply that time
>is involved. But you are saying that this is a timeless
>construct (like Platonia of the multiverse) ?
>
>Charles

Time as I understand the usual usage involves the concepts of fixed cycles
measured by a clock and potentially reconstructible histories - example:
why does time have an arrow if each "law" of physics is symmetric to time
reversal [ The behavior of some subatomic "particles" aside.]

I do not see how these concepts are compatible with the postulate.

I have to admit that I miss the reference to "Platonia".

Hal
Received on Wed Sep 12 2001 - 19:41:44 PDT