RE: You're hunting wild geese

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2000 08:49:29 +0100

Your ideas rely on time as a flowing exogenous variable. There's no evidence
for this...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Ruhl [SMTP:hjr.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Monday, 05 June, 2000 5:33 PM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: Re: You're hunting wild geese
>
> 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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential and may be privileged.
It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to
deliver it to the intended recipient, this message must not be copied or distributed to
any other person. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
by telephone (+44-20-7337-3500) and destroy the original message. The Gerrard Group reserves
the right to monitor all e-mail messages passing through its network.

This e-mail originates from the Gerrard Group unless otherwise stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Mon Jun 05 2000 - 01:34:07 PDT