Re: You're hunting wild geese

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2000 09:32:38 -0700

Dear Brent:

At 06:54 PM 6/1/00 -0700, you wrote:

>On 01-Jun-00, Higgo James wrote:
> > I really can't see why we should assume an observer. It all works fine
> > without one, taking the single assumption that all OMs exist, justified on
> > the grounds that that would require the minimum amount of Kolmogorov
> > complexity consistent with the fact that this OM exists.
>
>I agree that there is no need to assume an observer -

I also agree with Higgo that an observer is not necessary. My model,
though at the moment not a particularly popular one, is based on the
incompleteness characteristics of finite, consistent Formal Axiomatic
Systems and requires no such complication.

Also in my approach, due to its foundation in incompleteness, the process
of generating any particular universe is an ongoing one. Indeed, a
particular universe may not even have initiated yet.

Thus the underlying process is not some sort of unfolding sequence of
"selections" from an existing set of completed recipes. Rather the process
is the continuing addition of random but "meaningful" [in the Godelian
sense] short strings of bits to the long string that defines a particular
universe at a particular time quanta. A new universe results but it is one
that remains "meaningful" to its unique history.

The short strings are just random associations of bits that are constantly
being generated by the Plenitude or as I called it in my musings the
superverse. The generator is just a combination of the two most primitive
possible theorems in a FAS - a single bit string consisting of a zero and
the other single bit string consisting of a one. [ I try to demonstrate
that these can be theorems of an empty axiom.] These fill the Plenitude
with zeros and ones that form random associations - short strings - and
these occasionally attach in "meaningful" associations to longer already
existing strings.

Thus it seems that I must disagree that all thoughts exist at any finite
time quanta. Incompleteness seems to prevent this.

However, the concept that all possible universes can be generated from zero
information is undisturbed in my approach.

Therefore I see no need to explain the existence of SAS beyond their being
an occasional logical consequence of nothing whatsoever.

How a particular sub string of a particular universe defining long string
manages to represent a particular SAS seems to me not to be within the
scope of the dynamic of the Plenitude approach to "Why universes with SAS?
The answer represents a particular piece of information unique to a
particular universe and the Plenitude never contains any information at all.

In order for the information to sum to zero it seems to me that some other
possible universe must negate the result. That is that particular sub
string would not represent a SAS in that other universe.

Hal


>but since we 'seem' to be
>observers, this seeming existence of observers calls for explanation. I have
>not seen your explanation for this. Perhaps you feel no explanation is called
>for, but to me it seems to be a problem. The very fact that you call them
>OBSERVER-moments seems to imply an observer. I think you mean what I just
>refer to as thoughts (without assuming a thinker). Is it your idea that all
>thoughts exist and therefore thoughts about having a personal history and
>about
>an external four dimensional world are just some of the total ensemble which
>happen to have this coherence as part of their content. If that is your idea
>it is of course completely consistent and cannot be falsified - but it also
>seems barren - like radical solipism. It explains nothing because it explains
>everything. My approach, and I think that of others here, is that physics
>already spans a large range from abstract mathematical constructs through
>nueral activity of the brain. The challenge is, on the one hand explain why
>just these mathematical constructs and on the other to explain how the
>mathematical constructs imply consciousness (i.e. thoughts).
>
>Brent Meeker
Received on Sun Jun 04 2000 - 17:38:08 PDT