Re: The Time Deniers

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:03:52 -0400

Dear Hal,

    Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: The Time Deniers


> Hi Lee:
>
> At 09:47 PM 7/5/2005, you wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>>Where I join you (in failing to understand) is what happens as
>>the OM becomes of zero length. I did not say *the limit as
>>it becomes zero*, I said "zero". It's almost as though some
>>people take this as license to suppose that time is not a
>>necessary ingredient or even that time does not exist:
>
> snip
>
> The dynamic I speak of in my approach can give instantations of "being" to
> the preexisting states in many ways. For example: isolated states, all
> states a universe contains simultaneously, and clusters of states that
> would be closely coupled in a succession string of states. As "being"
> moved within the system the last example would be like a pulse of "being"
> with some non zero pulse width over the dimension of successor states for
> a particular universe. This might be a model for consciousness, thinking,
> continuity, observation, time, etc.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
Received on Thu Jul 07 2005 - 15:07:07 PDT