Hi Akinbo,
Exciting to find we have disagreements and I appreciate your taking time to read the essay and make comment. As to your two points, I believe we do disagree on path as being emergent, but perhaps your second one regarding 'hang time' is simply due to my not making clear my meaning.
Regarding path as being emergent, is unfortunate that we can't sit down and talk it through. I'm sure I would enjoy that. You mention being able to determine a path to Mars with, say, radio waves. Still there is a difference between a formulation and actually getting there. As I understand it, there is no exact analytical solution for what would essentially be a three-body problem let alone slight perturbations produced by other gravitational influences. Actually achieving Mars orbit or landing requires multiple in-flight adjustments of momentum, an adaptation to the actual gravitational terrain. That said, someone who actually does orbital mechanics might easily dismiss this argument.
But more to the point, here is another example. Consider your comment here about my essay. It is roughly 900 characters in extent and as a symbol string it is a unique step-wise path. If we consider my essay as the terrain and some reader of it as the traveler, would any reader other than you type out that particular string as comment?
As to the idea of goal of the universe being 'hang time,' I don't mean suggest that the universe is simply hanging out a couch. Clearly it is evolving in complexity. I meant to convey the idea that the physical universe emerges as an ongoing 'solution' to some underlying, cross-grained topologies. Their inherent tension is resolved by knotting together in a material form, the 'hang time' of existence. Further, if one of these topologies lacks temporal distinction and one of them lacks spatial distinction, our universe might be adaptive with physical laws adjusted early on to effect knot-ability.
Be that as it may, thanks for the comment. I have read your essay and will comment there shortly.
Best regards, Don