Re: Belief Statements

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 12:33:56 -0500

Hi Stephen:

At 11:08 AM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>
> How do your "kernels" fundamentally differ from Julian Barbor's "time
> capsules"?

I defined information as the potential to establish a boundary.
A kernel is the potential to establish a particular boundary.

When I said "time" in a previous post:

"In my opinion choice demands a non quantified time - that is a continuous
flow in a "=>" and there must be steps in a "=>>"."

I was talking about a progression in the sequence not necessarily an
ordered progression so perhaps "time" was the wrong word to use - it
confused the issue.

I am not familiar with Julian Barbor's "time capsules". Do you have a URL
where I could explore them?

> There seems to be a constant attempt by many to rework the idea of an
> a priori ordering, such that the universe - taken as a 3rd person
> representadum, or the conscious experience - the 1st person
> representadum, exist a priori and any notion of transitivity and change
> are merely some kind of illusion.

I would actually prefer to work with my theory (1) but my issue here is how
do I justify this given that the All and the Nothing are an [is,is not]
definitional pair. Why would one member of such a pair have an existence
that excludes the other. This forces me to theory (2) which seems free of
choice not only in this aspect but in the aspect that the All already
contains the entire ensemble of kernels.

Given this I would be forced to "believe" (1) and that some unknown reason
produces the initial existence asymmetry or invoke "simplicity" or some
other mantra.

> This is, IMHO, an attempt to derive Becoming from Being.
> Why not try something different? Like deriving Being from Becoming?

Well this may be close to describing a (the main resulting?) difference
between (1) and (2) but again how do I justify using (1) which is more like
Being from Becoming over (2) which is more like Becoming from Being since
(2) seems more complete as a theory?


Hal Ruhl
Received on Sun Jan 30 2005 - 12:36:16 PST