[FRIAM] now it's personal

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

While I don't much care what Peirce would say, the idea that would be interesting would be the openness and *width* of the "trajectory" we're on. I.e. it's not so much a trajectory as a series of "light cones", or possibility cones. At each tick (discrete or continuous) that cone might be fat or skinny. Is the fatness of the sequence of cones monotonic? It's normal to think that it is. And not merely monotonic but decreasing, with the passage of each tick, our wiggle room is more restricted. But one of the arguments from normalizable models and progressive historicity is that "degrees of freedom" might "open up" after some collapse at some tick. I.e. the cone might be quite thin until some turn into a more connected region of the space, where it fattens up again. So, the interesting trajectory is kinda like a derivative of the trajectory.


On 10/14/20 9:23 AM, jon zingale wrote:
> To speculate, I
> suppose Peirce would say that the universe is all *seething dog vomit* with
> but a few islands of temporally-local persistent patterns recognizable by
> us. OTOH, we need not be concerned by every possible CA, just the trajectory
> that we are on.


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ