Re: The Time Deniers

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 21:52:04 -0400

Hi Stephen:

I will not be able to fully respond for a few weeks. The idea of Being
having a pulse width in the dimension of closely coupled states such that
several successor states simultaneously have a degree of Being is new to my
understanding of my model but still inherent in my model and went unnoticed
by me for awhile. In partial response to your post using the picture of a
boundary having width was a quick way of picturing the idea - it may not be
the best.

Yours

Hal Ruhl

At 04:56 PM 7/8/2005, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>
> Please forgive my delay in replying.
>
>----- 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].
>
>[SPK]
>
> I state this in a more all encompasing way: Existence (Dasien) Exists.
>
>>
>>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].
>
>[SPK]
>
> OK, then it would seem that you take Becoming as fundamental,
> subordinate only to Existence, to give rise to "dynamic" of the system.
> Being then is the case where the dynamic/evolution has the form of a
> fixed point:
>x = f(x).
>
>>
>>3) The boundaries of the Somethings bestow instantations of reality to
>>states as they pass through the boundary [Being].
>
>[SPK]
>
> Here you are identifying the boundaries as the "Being" aspect. Could
> this "boundary" notion be the complement of the fixed point aspect? If we
> look at the topological requirements for the existence of a fixed point
> in some collection of points/states/phases/whatevers, we find that a
> boundary is required. Thus, tentatively, my proposal passes muster.
> What do you think?
>
>>
>>4) The width of the boundary determines the pulse width of Being over the
>>dimension of closely coupled states [continuity etc.]
>
>[SPK]
>
> I have a problem with the idea that a boundary can have a "width". How
> can that which differentiates the "inside" of a
> collection/set/class/category from its complementary "outside" have a
> width, unless we are assuming some kind of "fuzzy set"? I am not
> dismissing the idea out of hand, but I would appreciate some elaboration
> of this idea.
>
>Kindest regards,
>
>Stephen
Received on Fri Jul 08 2005 - 22:12:22 PDT