Response 1

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