Re: Bitstrings, Ontological Status and Time

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 11:39:54 -0400

Hi Stephen:

At 04:37 PM 5/6/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>
> No, I disagree. The mere a priori existence of bit strings is not
> enough to imply necessity that what we experience 1st person view points.
> At best it allows the possibility that the bit strings could be
> implemented. You see the problem is that it is impossible to derive
> Change or "Becoming" from Being.

Which is why I have focused my efforts in this venue on finding a simple
system that has a natural dynamic.

The fact that my result so far is a random dynamic does not prevent long
sequences where reality visits information kernels [bit strings] such that
the trace can be encoded in a set of rules [including simple ones] such as
those we call physics [whatever they may actually be if we do not know them
now].

Hal Ruhl
Received on Sat May 07 2005 - 11:44:13 PDT