Just for fun, I've made some very raw, extremely speculative, off-the-top-of-my-head, bordering-on-who-knows-what replies to your thoughts. If interested, here they are:
See, if actuality is monistic can it change?
Well, as I asked in my latest reply to PaulH, is randomness an ultimate reality? if so, monistic reality is toast -- but read on, maybe not . . . From a personal, quasi-spiritual perspective, I'd like to believe that the universe is ultimately monistic, that randomness is ultimately deterministic even if temporally uncorrelated; just an illusion to an imperfect consciousness. But what if randomnesss and order are universally essential, opposite poles, like the Zoroastrian eternal opposites of good and evil? Let me imagine them spinning off flows which meet and mix and interact. Eventually these flows blend. And perhaps these blends lose all movement and energy once completely blended. The universe would thus be ultimately headed for heat death and stillness (the recent discovery of dark energy being another hint that this is where it's all heading).
Unless -- unless consciousness somehow flourishes, somehow survives, and somehow inspires the use of orderly analytical processes to come up with a universe "game changer", along the lines of Frank Tipler's plan in "Physics of Immortality". OK, Tipler's plan per se won't work if the current dark energy expansion scenario precludes a "big crunch". But what if some other cosmic shortcut is discovered some day that allows some huge energy and information harnessing, thousands of years from now, as Tipler imagines in Physics of Im. ? Consciousness then makes a fundamental difference to actuality. The dualism that was going to become a monism of nothingness becomes a monism of somethingness and being, thanks to consciousness as an ontological game-changer.
Do we need a mind and perception in order for there to be change and conditions? I think so . . .
OK, maybe mind and consciousness are a kind of "hyper-information", a higher-order form of information; just as energy is inherent to the higher order form of motion, i.e. acceleration, then consciousness is inherent to / equal to a higher-order form of information and the potential of true fundamental "change" w/in the universe? (i.e., humans have the power to make a fundamental difference, however difficult it is for them to use this power due to the ongoing clash of order and randomness in which they "swim" and struggle? sturm und drung? I.e., if we dream big like Tipler, on changing the ultimate outcome of the universe?)
therefore, the starting condition is the same throughout all of actuality; if you were to display actuality as being in sequence to time, which I doubt.
Actuality might be in-sequence / "in-synch" with information flow, with time being a side-effect of that flow (i.e., a lower-order form of time, a form of time w/o conscious awareness of it). "Information" and "time" are thus used here in a first-order / lower-order sense; as such, plenty can happen in the universe w/o mind and consciousness, according to the underlying movement and flow and patterns of information (regular, lower-order information). I.e., galaxies and suns and planets can form, trees can evolve and grow and fall in forests, comets can crash into oceans, all w/o conscious perception and time as we know it (but with the lower order form of time, that allows orderly process in space). But for there to be change to this flow, i.e. acceleration or deceleration -- that
is inherent to mind and consciousness and conscious-time.
When time becomes a factor, presented when there is consciousness, then relation is possible. I have a theory about this. Maybe in actuality in order for time to be of its "monistic essence" it does not flow, but is in instances,
Hmmmm, another form of quantumization? I have read about quantum time. But as to the "mental time", the "second derivative time" that I hypothesize -- perhaps that escapes quantumization as the realm of consciousness seems smooth, non-quantum (?!?!?)
and no instance is direct correlation to another. So we can say that it is purely random, yet also, completely linear because all instances imply any other instances exactly, intrinsically
Something akin to fractal scale relationships? And holography, where all points have something of the essence of the whole?
when reality gets involved. And with reality, we have perception, so time can flow.
Hyper-Time, as in my higher order version of time? I.e., conscious/mental time, time that has the potential of "true change" (a trans-Obama form of change;)), ontological change which is exclusively a potential of consciousness; change to occur perhaps not today, perhaps not at all moments of all consciousness, maybe not for millenniums; but "in the fullness of time", as one of the religions puts it.
It is what it is, but not actually 'flowing'. Flow is a product of potential,
I've used the term 'flow' above, but not in the ontological sense which I think you mean here. I would poist that you mean FLOW as an aspect of "the ontological game changer". I.e., "potential" as ultimately needing consciousness, consciousness being the only thing that can be an ontological "game changer". So relative to my earlier use of the word "flow", this would be a "hyper-flow", akin to a second-derivative type of flow.
and in a durative sense it would be causality that is the potential, to me anyways.
Again, my comments here are raw mental effluent. But who knows, perhaps some of it can eventually be refined. And even if not, it's still interesting to let the mind wander where it may, from time to time.