Re: My proposed model - short form

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 22:13:57 -0800

Dear Bruno:

Part of your advice was:

"The incompleteness phenomena are notoriously misused. It is a reason
to be completely clear on it. Perhaps you should compare your approach
with those presented in the discussion list (Tegmark, Schmidhuber,
Russell,
George Levy, myself, etc.). That would help us."

I taking another look I found the following from Russell: [from a May 25,
2000 post]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

snip

I'm not sure who wrote what in this exchange, however I have had some
correspondence with a rather insistent fellow called Hal Ruhl who is
saying much the same thing. Basically, the great nothing is "unstable"
with respect to the question "is the great nothing
stable". Ultimately, Goedelian incompleteness will fill in the
Plenitude, if we don't assume it in the first place. I have to admit
that I'm not completely comfortable with the argument, but believe it
has some merit. Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate a URL for his
paper on the subject. However, his email is hjr.domain.name.hidden

snip

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thank you Russell. I had missed this when you posted it.

Insistent? Well I guess I am still tooting the same horn, but I consider
it an obsessive fumbling towards comprehension [I hope].

What I am really saying is that you can start with an "everything" or you
can start with a "nothing" and still wind up with an "everything". I
believe you should not be able to exclude one or the other path if your
logic holds water. As stated earlier I say "an" everything because I do
see it as having a dynamic - an incompleteness driven ongoing process.

As to the rest of my model I look forward to Russell's comments on the
hopefully improved version which I will post in a somewhat expanded form a
bit at a time.

Hal
Received on Tue Nov 07 2000 - 19:29:00 PST