Re: The Time Deniers

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:01:12 -0400

Hi John:

I will be unable to reply for several weeks.

Hal Ruhl

At 06:16 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>let me know if my (naive) worldview on Stephen's question is compatible with
>what you wrote (below):
>
>(to1: I don't know what to do with "all possible" because it is far beyond
>any idea we may have. Unless we restrict the 'all' to "whatever we can
>think/know of).
>
>to2: In the inherent and incessant DYNAMISM (as you wrote "random"? and I
>still do assign random to our ignorance to find order in cases called
>'random') - - to resolve the inherent incompleteness (ie. relax the stress,
>as I like to word it): any BEING must represent a snapshot of an inevitable
>and transitional BECOMING - from and into.
>That is in my 'wholeness' worldview. Totally interconnected,
>interinfluencing, interresponsive dynamism.
>
>to 3: Boundaries are constituting the 'models' of 'Somethings', restricting
>the observer (which I identify as ANYTHING/EVERYTHING that accepts
>information) from viewing the totality.
>I call such diversion from the wholeness a reductionism: reducing the
>observation into a boundary-enclosed model view. So in such case a BEING is
>acceptable as partial to the model. I think this agrees with your 'states'
>being above-model entities, as you said: "passing through the boundaries".
>
>to 4: I don't 'speculate' into reductionist detail-viewings (I have trouble
>enough with the wholistic formulations and once I slip into the cop-pout
>laxness of reductionist thinking, I lose grounds).
>However the "width" of boundaries you mention comes handy in the current
>problem I have on my agenda: How come that in the wholistic ie. unlimitedly
>interconnected world certain items are "more connected" than others - sort
>of a natural basis for model-formation? George Kampis lately called such
>differentiation (in evolution-thinking) a "depth" of the connection. I
>tried an "ideational closeness" but this is too primitive a metaphor. It
>emerged from my Karl Jaspers F. paper (2004) of "Networks of Networks" where
>the infinitely outbranching unlimited network systems still form networks
>and not a boundariless free floating 'grits'. Closeness came in from a
>visualization of interconnected networks, through how many can one get to a
>distnat item, which itself of course is also a network on its own. --Ideas
>appreciated. --
>(Forgive me to burden you with my ongoing topic of so far unsolved
>speculations).
>
>John Mikes
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
>To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 3:31 PM
>Subject: Re: The Time Deniers
>
>
> > Hi Stephen:
> >
> > At 03:03 PM 7/7/2005, you wrote:
> > >Dear Hal,
> > >
> > > Which is primitive in your thinking: Being or Becoming?
> > >
> > >Stephen
> >
> > Let me try it this way:
> >
> > 1) All possible states preexist [Existence].
> >
> > 2) The system has a random dynamic [the Nothing is incomplete in the
> > All/Nothing system and must resolve the incompleteness - this repeats
> > endlessly] that passes states from the outside to the inside of an
>evolving
> > Something [There are many [infinite] simultaneously evolving Somethings -
> > due to the repeats] [Becoming].
> >
> > 3) The boundaries of the Somethings bestow instantations of reality to
> > states as they pass through the boundary [Being].
> >
> > 4) The width of the boundary determines the pulse width of Being over the
> > dimension of closely coupled states [continuity etc.]
> >
> > Hal Ruhl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 07/06/05
> >
> >
Received on Fri Jul 08 2005 - 12:18:16 PDT