Hal,
I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it
though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology"
dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something
like:
"...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add:
observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was
providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest
is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside
Differentiation and Integration).
A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word
'bifurcation' - indicating that "only 2" chances in the impredicative
unlimited totality.
As a second (even more minor) remark: "All possible states" sounds to
me as being restricted to the level "WE" find possible. Since
cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that
looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine
considers anything 'iompossible'?
Have a good 2008
John M
On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden> wrote:
>
> Hi Russell:
>
> I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your
> book. Thanks for the cite.
>
> My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains
> no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is
> one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always
> asked and must be answered. To answer it the Nothing must acquire
> information and become a Something.
>
> Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be
> incomplete and continue the quest for completeness. Such a quest
> must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something.
>
> Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable
> Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of
> compatible states for a Something each containing more information
> than the last - that is the imposition of time.
>
> Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to
> minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one.
>
> The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How
> many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection
> response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed
> over and over forever.
>
> 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 everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Jan 07 2008 - 12:12:22 PST