If determinism is true, and every universe-state is strictly determined by a previous universe-state given a discrete set of laws, which can be expressed and calculated mathematically, then every universe-state is essentially a mathematical transformation from any other state along the time line, the only true differentiation involved being the value t2 - t1. All other differentiations can be tautologically derived from that and the laws of evolution. This means that, eg. a ripple in a pond is merely an expression of the falling drop.

Both universe-states (the one with the ripple and the one with the drop) do not fully exist independently; given one, the other one must objectively comprise about as much information as a single linear value t. See compress.txt.

Applying the above principle recursively, this means that ontologically all of the information in the entire timeline adds up to a trifle more than the information contained withion one time-frame. There just isn't enough room there for every perceived time-frame to exist in-itself. So which one actually (will) exist(s/ed)? Right now? 3 minutes from now? Yesterday at 2:15:53.77? (we're talking about the universe from an entire time-line point of view so well exist and existed are on equal grounds with exists.) Or is existence/manifestation a sliding window predicating determined states in order from beginning to end? (Plurality of "states" is used loosely here, a single continuum with arbitrary granularity is acceptable.) If that were the case, then there must be some process that is calculating the mathematical progression at a consistent speed. Where does this process take place and what determines the speed at which it does? This process must be deterministic and therefore the same questions that apply to our-level processes apply to this meta-process. The question of actual progression of time could be deferred indefinitely but you'd have an indefinite number of meta-meta-processes and in the end you would still find no solid ground on which time progresses at one rate and not at another. And not to mention solid ground for the fact that the rules of evolution/transformation are even executed to begin with.

Of course you could say that there is an essentially static time line and the progression of time that we know is an illusion afforded by the "dynamics" (four-dimensional static weave) of our consciousness (constituting a material process) and its marriage to the four-dimensional weave of its environment, while attrition between the two is only *apparent* in three dimensions perpendicular to time, perhaps because that is the (3-d) plane in which the conscious process is fractal and thus awareness is possible, or something like that. But the problem with this is the above problem that, linking determinism with the rationale that the universe is not losslessly compressible (compress.txt), there is not enough room in actual ontology for the information of this entire continuum, not even enough for an inclusive segment of planck time.

Or does one segment in time contain/imply within it the rules for transformation to the next segment and the rules for interpretation of the rules and the rules for interpretation of those rules etc., recursively and somehow in the end it works out like motion vs. Zeno's paradox, thus making the universe both deterministic and yet truly creative so that compressibility is a non-issue? I doubt it. It doesn't seem to account for the ultimate axiom of progression itself such that there is a reason for another segment to manifest to begin with, under any rules at all. Maybe my problem with that comes down to the problem that "causal necessity is not logical necessity." But why is that so?

What I believe is that the recursive rules for the rules for the rules etc., exist (and, btw, not as 'rules' as such but as self-consistency), but they don't exist strictly in space (and they don't exist platonicly either; platonism is a synonym for confusion between mental and actual). They exist throughout the whole of space/time, from big bang to big crunch or heat death, in vectors, modalities or methodoligies that we know nothing of. Causation as WE know it is essentially association.

When the actual relationships extend beyond our associative powers in propinquity, we get confused. The point in case would be the general assumption that there is actual "randomness" on a quantum level. Maybe it is all "caused", in e sence, just not in linear time as we know it. Or not by all local factors.

Not in a billiard ball sense, in any case. We know now that such ideology does not apply to all scales. But to assume "randomness" is akin to assuming divine intervention. If events could unfold in a particular way for no reason, why would the nature of the event be such that it is physically compatible with the rest of this universe, and thus observable/efficate within it? An event with a "truly" random attribute would be missing delimiters of possible form and its essence thus becomes out of phase with this singularity we live in. An event within this universe is associated with it through consistency; its nature is completely determined by its history and its history is necessarily a part of this universe thus making it self-consistent and 100% here.

"History" may be in any time, any place, though. For example, there has been an interpretation of quantum physics that explains the double-slit experiment very nicely when it is assumed that there is an element of backward causation; energy/particles travelling backward in time.

On the other hand, it seems there is something I'm missing about quantum theory that satisfies the experience of flow of time very nicely, like riding a wave.. ...that's what my imagination tells me anyway...

-inhahe, (C)Copyleft 2001