My model simplified

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 12:26:55 -0400

Hi everyone:

Below is a simplified version of the approach I have been working on
for so long.

I would appreciate comments.

Thank you.



1) Object: That which has/represents/expresses a set of properties.

2) List of all properties: The list of all possible properties
objects can have. The list can not be empty since there is at least
one object: A Nothing. A Nothing has at least one property -
emptiness. The list is most likely at least countably infinite and
is assumed herein to be so. Any list can be divided into two
sub-lists - the process of defining two objects - a definitional
pair. The set of all possible subsets of the list is a power set and
therefore uncountably infinite. Therefore there are uncountably
infinite objects. The list is itself a property of an object =>
Property: expresses all properties; Object: the list. Thus the list
is a member of itself. It is a self booting, infinitely nested self reference.

3) Physical Reality: Logically objects should be allowed to interact
because there is no logical reason to preclude this
possibility. Interaction means that they change each others
properties thus transforming into two different objects by such
interaction. The simplest way for some objects to interact is to
mutually alter just one property. Call this property Physical
Reality. It would have many degrees [why not?].

4) Existence: A non zero degree of Physical Reality.


Proposal: The existence of our universe and other universes and their
dynamics are the result of unavoidable definition, incompleteness,
and inconsistency.


1) Using definition 1 and 2 the presence of unavoidable definition
can be established by noting that a Nothing and a Something are a
definitional pair and at least one of this pair must have a high
degree of existence - definition 4.

2) Since the list is infinitely nested there are infinitely many
Nothing:Something pairs.

3) The simplest way for these two objects to interact is for each to
have the property of some degree of Physical Reality - definition 3 -
and to interact by mutually altering each other's degree of this property.

4) A Something is actually a collection of all objects except a Nothing.

5) The objects in a Something can be divided into self consistent
and self inconsistent objects. Thus we have the inconsistency factor
in the proposal.

6) A Nothing is self consistent since it can not settle any
meaningfull question about itself. A Nothing must answer at least
one meaningful question about itself - the question of its own
duration - but it can not. Thus we have the incompleteness factor in
the proposal.

7) A Nothing must eventually begin to resolve its incompleteness. It
can only do this by randomly interacting with an object in its
companion Something by a mutual alteration [exchange] of their degree
of Physical Reality - the dynamic factor in the proposal. It is
unlikely that this object will be complete so the interaction process
between successive objects will continue until completeness is achieved.

8) Logically self inconsistent objects have no logical way to
interact with self consistent objects. Therefore this cascade of
objects that receive enhanced degrees of physical reality will all be
self consistent. In order for the incompleteness to be progressively
resolved the successive objects will contain progressively more information.

9) Since a Something contains inconsistent objects it is itself, in a
sense, inconsistent. Any dynamic within it must inherit some
component of this inconsistency.

10) A somewhat inconsistent [unpredictable] succession of self
consistent objects with increasing information content having
successively altered degrees of Physical Reality [existence] and an
infinite number of such chains of succession taking place seems to
provide a reasonable venue for our universe and the notion that it is
a member of an infinite set of such universes.

11) As to the list I see it as just possibility. I see its power set
as being the Everything. So this approach just postulates the
Everything. If the Everything contains all information then this
information must be packaged in packets of all sizes - divisions of
the list => objects. I do not see that one can logically propose
that the Everything is static. So it has a dynamic. The above
proposes a mechanism for this dynamic.

12) As to what is consciousness it is not logical to propose that the
succession of objects given a degree of Physical Reality in this
dynamic works by giving non zero Physical Reality to just one object
at each stage of the succession. Rather it is more logical to allow
a spectrum of functioning such that adjacent objects can have various
degrees of Physical Reality. The Physical Reality function would
have various pulse widths and pulse shapes spanning a cluster of
objects in the succession. This allows objects and sub-components of
such objects to experience a "flow" of existence.

Hal Ruhl

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Sep 04 2006 - 12:28:50 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST