Re: Belief Statements

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:57:56 -0500

Hi Russell:


At 06:50 PM 1/10/2005, you wrote:

>It is an assumption (or perhaps postulate: the Time postulate). It is
>amenable to debate, just as Euclid's axioms are. I offer the following
>points in its favour:
>
>1) Observation is the process of creating information, by
> distinguishing differences between things (aka bits).

I can not agree with this given my model. Physical Reality is brought to
world kernels in some sequence by the dynamic. As I stated before each
step of the dynamic is inconsistent with its past [see the All/Nothing
multiverse model thread]. As such there is no dimensionality to it or
perhaps one could call it infinitely dimensioned. All world kernels
preexist within the All. Information is not created or
destroyed. Switched on and off in terms of physical reality is a better
view. However, world kernels are of different informational content [size]
so a world can look like information is created if the sequence of kernels
consists of kernels of increasing size.

>2) To have a difference, obviously requires at least one dimension.

Worlds can of course have non zero finite dimensionality. However,
differences are not distinguishable by some other difference [a difference
is what I take to be that which is pointed to by the term "observer"].


>3) To compare two different entities requires that the properties of
> the two entities be brought together (inside the observer's
> "mind"). Thus the one required dimension must be "timelike", with
> the observer passing from point to point.

As stated above a difference can not "compare" [distinguish] other
differences. However, a difference can change as the dynamic moves to
different kernels and this can look like an act such as distinction and
appear [memory - false or not] as if directed by the difference that changes.

>4) For those who believe in Computationalism, the Turing model of
> computation implicitly requires this Time postulate.

Some kernel sequences could appear to be the successive outputs of a
computer but this is just appearance.

>5) It appears to be a necessary ingredient to obtain Quantum Mechanics
> from first principles (see my "Why Occams Razor" paper)

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity appear to be just consequences of some
world kernels having a non zero, finite difference in size and the dynamic
providing a physical reality to a sequence of such world kernels - a non
zero, discrete step evolution of the applicable world.

Hal
Received on Tue Jan 11 2005 - 00:10:47 PST