Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:33:39 -0400

Hi Russell and John:

The simplest response is that in many of the discussions on this list
there runs a current of what I see as a level of systemic
change. There are for example computers computing, or observers
observing. Russell proposes [as I understand it] that there is a
degree of link between successive observer moments and I agree. I
see this as a [local] time like change and I believe Russell does as
well. In any event we in our universe do not observe perpetual
stasis and the language of many posts naturally supports this [see
above] as I think it should. Part of my quest has been where does
this lack of observed stasis come from. The system in my model has a
dynamic derived from its simple structure. The dynamic is globally
random but nevertheless supports the idea of local ordered change
i.e. a time like local sequence of states. In my opinion a random
dynamic can not support the idea of time because there is no ordered
sequence. Therefore my system has if I am correct no global
time. On the local level some universes would also have random state
sequences and thus not be witness to time like change.

On a global scale ordered change would raise the question: Why that
ordered sequence? My model addresses this problem with a total lack
of global ordered sequencing.

Hal Ruhl

At 05:44 PM 10/9/2005, you wrote:
>Yes - you have put finger on exactly where I feel most uncomfortable
>about Hal Ruhl's ideas. Over to you Hal :)
>On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 12:02:38PM -0700, John M wrote:
> > Hal and Russell (and whoever is interested),
> >
> > in this dialogue - which I don't feel like
> > participating in - the word 'dynamic' is frequently
> > applied. Without going into more involved theories
> > where the term 'lives', the dictionary meaning is like
> > procedure involving a force or similar. My notion was
> > that 'time' is inevitable in a dynamic procedure (?)
> > Since in my 'narrative' time, space, even causality
> > are concepts pertinent to THIS universe and its
> > perception of the order we observe and try to explain,
> > are you contemplating the discussion on the
> > circumstances of THIS universe? (Mind you: I don't
> > deny the above terms from other universes but I do not
> > restrict those (any of them) to the characteristics we
> > use for ours).
> >
> > John M
> >
>*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
>is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
>virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
>email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
>may safely ignore this attachment.
>A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
>Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
> International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
Received on Sun Oct 09 2005 - 20:43:57 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST