Re: Belief Statements

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:08:15 -0500

Comments below, please.
John M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Belief Statements


> Hi Russell:
>
> My dynamic in part produces worlds that appear to have time as a property
> but also produces all kinds of worlds that have no time in the sense of
> there being any ordered sequence. There are also "worlds" that are just a
> single kernel that is given physical reality in a manner commensurate with
> the features of the dynamic.
>
> Hal
>
>
> At 07:40 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote: (Russell Standish)
> >A compromise on these two views occurs through my assumption of "Time"
> > being a necessary property of observerhood. Sure atemporal worlds
> > exist, but there's nobody in them to observe them. Similarly, Hal
> > Ruhl's dynamic process is simply the process of observation.
> >
> > Cheers (R.St.)
>
> ----------------------------------------------------

Russell seems to restrict 'observerhood' to timed worlds (maybe: humans?)
("there's nobody in them to observe them"). I leave 'observation' open to
ANY absorption of information, in 'our' sense or otherwise. I don't 'deny'
existence to formats we have no idea about. We just don't know.

Hal (above) mentions dynamic, in our usual sense, a sequence in time, as a
property of the world (the one (kind?) we live in). Reference to "ORDERED"
sequence, ordered as we have it (in time).

I mentioned several times (!) tha one problem I struggle with is how to
fashion
'change' in an atemporal system? where the 'from' and 'to' are not fixed?
This
seems to be beyond our imagination - however I don't deny its existence (see
above).

Our 'model' of the 'world' disallows these variations, but - that's where
the
reductionistic models fail to represent the wholeness (totality). Sciences
are
reductionistic, so I accept the reply that my idea is not "scientific" (in
today's
definitions of the sciences).

JM
Received on Mon Jan 10 2005 - 16:25:14 PST