Re: Properties of observers

From: Stephen Paul King <>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 09:12:37 -0500

Hi Hal and fellow Members,

    I hae been following Hal's work for quite some time. Some comments...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Caylor" <>
To: "Everything List" <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Properties of observers

> On Feb 3, 11:46 am, Hal Ruhl <> wrote:
>> The following discusses observer properties under my model of the
>> Everything.
>> I take the list of observer properties I discuss below from what I
>> have so far found in Russell's "Theory of Nothing". One property -
>> Giving meaning to data [number 5 on the list] - does not seem to be
>> supportable under a description of the Everything as containing all
>> information.
> Hi again between my being too busy to converse here in a while.
> Surprise, surprise, that the crux of the matter ends up in yet another
> circumstance being the mystery of where meaning comes from. Alas,
> this single unsolved problem has a viral effect to the rest of any
> theory of everything. See below.
>> As indicated in earlier posts, within my model of the Everything is a
>> dynamic which consists of incomplete Nothings and Somethings that
>> progress towards completeness in a step by step fashion. At each
>> step they grow more complete by encompassing more of the information
>> in the Everything.
>> The incompleteness is not just that of mathematical systems but is
>> more general. It is the inability to resolve any question that is
>> meaningful to the particular Nothing or Something. Some such
>> questions may be of a sort that they must be resolved. The one I
>> focus on in this regard is the duration of the current boundary of
>> the particular Nothing or Something with the Everything.
> Without the ability to give meaning to anything, how can there be a
> "meaningful question"?

    Does this "inability" need to be, itself, Complete? It seems to me that
"meaning" per say is relational and more of a sort of "how much of X is
expressed in Y". A Complete resolution of a "question" such as this would be
like unto a exact equality between X and Y. We could use Leibniz' principle
of the Indentity of Indiscernables here.

>> A Something will of course be divisible into subsets of the
>> information it contains. Many of these subsets will participate in
>> the incompleteness of the Something of which it is a subset. At each
>> step wise increase in the information content of that Something many
>> of its subsets will receive information relevant to the resolution of
>> their "local" un-resolvable meaningful questions.

    Consider how a word in a dictionary is "defined" in terms of a web of
relations with other words... How would we quantify this amount of

>> Resultant observer properties:
>> 1) Prediction of the future behavior of the Something of which they
>> are a subset [of their particular universe]:
>> The subsets share some of the incompleteness of their Something and
>> participate in the progressive resolution of this
>> incompleteness. The current "local" incompleteness [part of the
>> current state of an observer] can serve as a predictor of the
>> Something's evolution since it is a target of the progressive influx
>> of information.
> How can there be any meaningful "progressive resolution" without
> meaning?

    Maybe because there is no "meaningfulness" in absense of a relationship.
Meaning would arise just as the notion of "between-ness". (This idea comes
from James N. Rose)

>> 2) Communication between subsets:
>> There is no requirement that the subsets be disjoint or have fixed
>> intersections. There are no restrictions on the number of copies of
>> a given packet of information contained within in a Something and no
>> restrictions on the copy function. A Something containing any number
>> of copies of part or all of itself is just as incomplete as if it
>> contained just one copy.
>> 3) Evolution:
>> The progressive resolution of the incompleteness is an evolution.
>> 4) Developing filters [re: white rabbit density]:
>> The shifting incompleteness of a subset constitutes a shifting filter
>> that is founded in the history of the dynamic for that Something. [I
>> mentioned white rabbits in this regard in another post.]
>> 5) Giving meaning to data [symbol strings][generation of information?]:
>> The Everything is considered information. A symbol string seems to
>> be just a link between the set of all possible meanings that
>> particular string can have. It is just a boundary within the
>> Everything enclosing the associated set of meanings. It is a
>> definition, definitions are information [meaning] and thus part of
>> the Everything. How can an evolving Something and its subsets give
>> more meaning to a meaning? This property seems unsupportable in an
>> Everything.
> I think you've summed up in your words the crux of the matter.
>> 6) Necessity of "Time":
>> As I mentioned in a earlier post the meaningful question I use
>> bootstraps time and thus the dynamic.
>> 7) Life:
>> The characteristics of life [evolution, copy, variation] are just
>> part of the ensemble of potential meaningful questions - some
>> un-resolvable - that can apply to some subsets of a Something and
>> seem covered by the other discussions herein.
>> 8) Randomness:
>> Each step in the progression towards completeness provides a
>> resolution to a random set of the open meaningful questions.
>> 9) Self awareness, consciousness:
>> The Something subset boundary dynamics/allowances described above
>> appear to cover these varieties of subset evolution.
>> 10 Creativity:
>> See #8 - randomness.
> I don't see how creativity just pops automatically out of randomness.
> That's the crux of the matter.

    COuld it be that a "random set" is just a stand in for some collection
chosen without a pre-established "rule"? Again, consider a dictionary and
the sequensing of words in a paragraph or a string of symbols.Given a notion
of a grammar, do the words/symbols follow necessarily monotonically from a
fixed one-to-one and onto type of rule? No. Just because a rule may exist
that could generate a given string, it does not follow that said string was
in fact thus generated.

>> Subsets of evolving Somethings in my model appear to have the
>> properties of observers mentioned above that also seem supportable by
>> an Everything - all but giving meaning to data.
>> There is so far no subset based spontaneous influence on the
>> progression of the dynamic. All aspects of the information dynamic
>> appear to originate from the history of the dynamic for a particular
>> Something and its resultant current incompleteness.
>> 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 Sun Feb 10 2008 - 09:12:42 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST