Dear Hal,
It seems to me that a "global ordered sequencing" would be equivalent to
Newton's idea of absolute time. As I see it all one needs is a local
sequence of events - ala Leibnitz' "time is an order of sucession", and some
thing that acts as a local measure of change. Together these make in a local
clock that is compatible with both GR and QM.
See:
http://www.kitada.com/bina/time_XI.pdf
Kindest regards,
Stephen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Dynamic was:: A question re measure {correction}
> 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
Received on Sun Oct 09 2005 - 23:37:22 PDT