Response 1

From: Hal Ruhl <>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:08:42 -0800

I place a group of response ideas in one place for my convenience and for
those on the list.
I have posted a lot lately.

First Person:

I have actually already addressed this but not very explicitly. See my
"Life" and "Thank you" posts re: my equation is life. Each universe is an
"I". Some sub strings of a universe's Uj(i) may carry the illusion of an
individual "I". See also Tegmark, footnote # 2 - each of my universes is
its own SAS.


My point, as I have said many times, is a logical one - you can not prove a
postulate. In this case - if we have arrived at the correct conclusion -
Everything exists - [or at least someone's concept of Everything] there
must be more than one postulate that results in the same conclusion.
Neither will have an argument that can exclude the other otherwise it
amounts to a proof. This seems only straight forward. We could dance
forever and not arrive at only one.

I do not wish to dance this particular dance much, but:

Someone would have to show me the cause of "Nothing".

It was said that "ABSENCE of ANY cause leads to the Plenitude." Am I to
understand that "ABSENCE of ANY cause..." is the postulate. I think not
since as far as I can tell it has a dual belonging. It is a property of
both postulates.

Further someone would have to show me that within its own context "Nothing"
is not "all states".


These universes of mine MUST spontaneously mutate. If that is a machine
then the connotation "machine" to me carries no distinction from
"Everything" so I see it as pointless to clutter things up with it.

Deterministic vs non deterministic:

Please note that my equation is piecewise computational. Each
computational run in Uj(i) is separated from another by non deterministic
jumps. In a way it unifies both views.


My fractal:

My fractal is more than the usual description of "Everything" that I have
seen. It has no selection at all up to the Hilbert/Turing limit [Which copy
of all copies would a person select to form the usual version of the "All
strings exist." approach?], and it is dynamic in the sense that it is
overall not deterministic from the point of view of a particular "I" - a
particular Uj(i). This "I" is not a selection either since there would be a
countable infinity of identical "I"'s and so too for the sub string
illusions of "I". Each string at a given "i" has a fixed history, but an
uncertain future. Each universe "j" has no interaction with another.

As to not going to a continuum in my fractal I do not see how that can
satisfy Hilbert - i.e. consistency - given Turing - i.e. no proofs beyond a
countably infinite number. In my opinion consistency has no application
beyond Turing's limit to "proof".

In addition my equation is a recursion and successive steps must halt.

Received on Mon Nov 20 2000 - 16:17:14 PST

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