Re: You're hunting wild geese

From: Brent Meeker <>
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 19:00:44 -0700

On 05-Jun-00, Hal Ruhl wrote:

> 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.

I'm confused by several aspects of your idea. First, it is not clear how
random strings represent information. Although a random sequence has maximal
information in Shannon's sense, this is a purely formal measure and for the
sequence to actually represent information requires and interpretation (and an
interpreter?). Second, I don't understand the sense in which some information
can cancel other information - are you referring to what are called 'defeaters'
in non-monotonic logic?, i.e. pieces of information that throw into doubt
previous conclusions? Third, the idea of 'the process is the continuing
addition' implies that the formal system is evolving in time. But an
explanation of the universe must explain time - not take it as a primitive.
Already theories such as Hawkings "no boundary" theory do this. Your idea of
theorems from zero axioms sounds interesting - but how does it work. It is
well known that axioms can be replaced by rules of inference. Are you just
moving axioms into the rules of inference? What rules of inference are you

Brent Meeker
Received on Sun Jun 04 2000 - 20:53:48 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST