- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>

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.

Nothing:

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".

Machine:

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.

Note:

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.

Hal

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

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.

Nothing:

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".

Machine:

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.

Note:

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.

Hal

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
*