WDEshleman@aol.com
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 02:12:32 EDT

[WDE]
> > Here are some of my thoughts about change pulled from my abstract.
> >
> > This proposal begins with the argument that the linear operators (x),
that
> > dictate the evolution of the state of an object, are themselves measured
in
> > present states (NOW), not past states (PAST). That is, if NOW = PAST + x
*
> > PAST, then NOW/PAST = 1 + x, a trivial result allowing all values of x.
On
> > the other hand, if it realized that it is more logical and consistent
that,
> > NOW = PAST + x * NOW, then NOW/PAST = 1/(1 - x), a most interesting
> > result that prevents x from achieving unity.
[SPK]
> Very neat! So is unity achieved asymptotically in the infinite limit,
> Lim i -> \inf. : x = 0 ? I am having a hard time with the math. :-(
> (dyslexia sucks!)

[WDE]
Associating x with PAST states,
if NOW = PAST + x * PAST => NOW = PAST * (1 + x)
=> NOW/PAST = (1 + x), this is classical (common sense) change.

Or associating x with NOW states,
if NOW = PAST + x * NOW => NOW - x * NOW = PAST
=> NOW * (1 - x) = PAST => NOW/PAST = 1/(1 - x),
this is relativistic (singularity) change. That is,
NOW = PAST/(1 - x). Not, NOW = PAST * (1 + x)

[SPK]

> Can we think of worlds in terms of different NOW/PAST pairs?

[WDE]
I don't think of worlds as NOW/PAST pairs, but you may have
something there. I see the PAST as always gone and that
associating a "change operator" with the PAST is relativistically
wrong (or relativity suggests that it's wrong). Matti, if you are