Sequential Dimension

I have decided (or discovered) that there's such a thing as a sequential dimension.  Some have referred to a similar concept as the dimension of time, but have seemed unaware that time is actually our measure of change, and change has no choice except to be sequential.  Otherwise there'd be no such thing as measurable "time."  And we then are led to see that time shows us nothing if not measurable sequence.
I'll leave it at that while I study this a bit to see what else has been written or discussed in this area, since as far as I've learned to date, it seems very little.
But wait: If the above is so, causation, as measured by the sequential dimensions of change, is by that measure endlessly multidimensional.  And universal strategies, for example, must be effectively sequentially dimensional!!  And they causatively go in all directions, so how does that fit into a dimensional paradigm?  (Considering of course that in theory, energetic nature never stops. And that sequence is not necessarily reversible.)
Lots of thought to ensue here!!

(Such as about sequential purposes.)
(Not about sequence space, however.)

11-16-1012 : Notes seen on another site, apparently a facetious play on sequences:
 "The point is in any case that it's not "time" that dilates, it's the nature and rate of change.  Special relativity theories didn't change that. Time is a dimension of measurement.  But unlike other measurements, it's also sequential.  The ramifications of sequence are yet to be completely thought out.  You can slow down change, but we don't know if we can slow sequential steps.  We know we can't reverse them non-sequentially."
"Let me explain that change is guided by the movements of electron spins, which we don't seem to be able to slow down, even though we can appear to slow down at times the rate of structural changes at the molecular level and above . But if sequences are at bottom consistent with the movements of electrons, we can neither slow them down or speed them up. Time at the molecular level can thus be inconsistent with time at the level of their electrons. But the rate of sequential changes anywhere seems to always stay the same."

Wow, it's almost like they're mocking me!
But this doesn't answer the question either, if the movement of electron spins can't be slowed down, because there's a clear inconsistency there with the rate of slowing down changes at the molecular level.  What can we now mock of that?

Reminder

*In the pragmatic way of thinking in terms of conceivable practical implications, every thing has a purpose, and its purpose is the first thing that we should try to note about it.*
Charles Sanders Peirce

Proposal

The "survival" strategy of the universe's energetic system is to learn of and anticipate the "known" and concurrently expect the "unknown."
Thus organisms with conscious connections to their surroundings learn to anticipate events and consequentially come to trust the accuracy of the anticipated.  And to distrust those signals that have not been to the same extent expected.  And the signalers learn in turn to make signals conform to their competitive and predatory needs, and thus these "deceptive" actions (as the more abstract thinkers have come to call it), have arisen and continue to fuel the evolutionary advancement of all purposive strategies.

And So?

Perhaps the elemental "truth" of the cosmos is that any energetic system with the most minimal strategic purpose will learn to self-organize its operation; and that somewhere there has always been a form of strategically motivated energy.
All such organizing will thus be in turn strategic and all strategies by necessity manipulative, and in that sense competitive with all other potentially intervening strategies.  What we then have come to see as strategic cooperation will have been the result of competition at some more basic level of these strategies' mutual existence.
So that we, as evolved strategic entities, can now cooperate to compete, somewhat as our cosmological forbears had much earlier competed to cooperate.

Because?

All forms of our universe's nature are by the logic of its "laws" anticipating an answer to the "what comes next" question (i.e., a matter forming the basis of a problem requiring resolution). Evolving preparations for dealing more safely with prospective answers will have sequentially become their strategic purpose. Finding ways to better "ask" that central question becomes purposive as well.
Initial on-off optional systems develop safer sub-optional strategies. Which, trial and error wise, concurrently redevelop the forms that can more reasonably apply them.
Which (still the "big question" exactly how and when) allowed the arising of the simplest self-calculated questions and independently usable responses, that then developed individually separate yet inevitably cooperative strategies for discovering better questions, and better "living" forms from which to functionally ask them.

(And it may be that the universe has virtually always had symbolic pattern based strategies prepared to be adjusted and acted on self-sufficiently when opportunities required it, or circumstances were best suited to such processes.)

Why

Why not?

Serving a biological purpose means, in effect, serving an intelligent purpose, if, as I believe, all biological functions were self engineered intelligently in anticipation of attending properly to expected problems.

And chances seem quite good that all systems functioning in the universe were self-engineered, even though more by reactive than pro-active choice, to nevertheless have, and thus serve, an intelligent purpose.
Which may be why so many are confused as to the use of the word purpose, since service of a purpose still implies a purpose somewhere behind the service. And we're taught that, outside of man and beasts at least, the universe has no purpose for its actions. But it seems to me our inferential feelings are correct after all, and that service of a purpose is always for an intelligently acquired and required reason.

More Reasonable Purposes

Conceptual versus Factual Premises

A lot's being written now with titles such as "Why do humans reason?" and "Arguments
for an argumentative theory." Interesting but as usual no-one is looking at our system's deeper evolutionary purpose. The points they are missing in a nutshell are these:

Our predictive systems are using probabilistic logic in one sense, but not necessarily as in Bayesian or other factual premise driven systems. Because what we in our subconscious processing are looking for are familiar patterns, and we assess them not so much for consequences of expected behaviors but for past purposes that those patterns must (from historical assessments) represent.
The problem then becomes one of how those predicted or predictive purposes might help us to anticipate the tactical natures of apposing learned or inherited strategies.
The probabilities depend on the perceived purposes, hence the premises involved are not so much factual as conceptual.
The concept of conceivable purposes.