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

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

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:00:57 -0700

Dear Juergen:

At 4/3/01, you wrote:

*> > caterpillars. Now stir with my Everything/Nothing alternation.
*

*>
*

*>Stir how? In a computable way? You might want to try to formally describe
*

*>what you mean.
*

I believe that attempting an extensive detailed formal description of the

Everything is the wrong approach. IMO - at least in this case - the more

information used to describe, the smaller the thing described.

I became convinced some time ago and before joining this list that the

actual foundation of our experience was "no information". So how does one

describe "no information" or "The Nothing"? Since it is empty it is

anisomorphic.

I hit on the idea that its very emptiness may make it Godelian

incomplete. Since The Nothing can not resolve any question whatsoever the

issue became an effort to construct a meaningful one.

That brought me to the question of its stability. Can The Nothing

endure? I do not see "Time" as entering by the back door via this question

because it is an issue of stasis not flow. I see no way for The Nothing to

escape addressing the issue of the durability i.e. stability of its own

stasis.

Since The Nothing is sans logic to address this issue it must resort to

test by perturbation. IMO the minimum perturbation is for The Nothing to

directly become The Everything. According to the notion that no selection

- i.e. having all information - is identical to having no information - The

Everything is just a different configuration of "no information" - well

almost.

The interesting thing is that the Everything being a perturbation from the

Nothing does not contain the Nothing. Subtracting the Nothing from "all

information" to produce the Everything is the smallest selection

[perturbation] I can think of. The idea being that no information and all

information are identical but the Everything is not quite all

information. For this reason I prefer the name Superverse.

The perturbation is a history destroying event. The Superverse, lacking

knowledge of its origin, has exposure to the same unresolvable question re

its stability. To test this it must execute a perturbation to the

Nothing. Again a history destroying event. So here is a

Superverse/Nothing [S/N] alternation or foundation for our experience.

I also had a description of this alternation idea in an earlier post:

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2663.html

So having arrived at the idea that a Superverse does show up what do we do

to understand our place in it? This would be making a further

selection. Now the larger the piece of the Superverse you describe the

less information you should need to describe it. So select pieces of this

Superverse that can support our universe until one finds one with the

shortest description. This in a way brought me to the idea of pattern. A

pattern may be represented buy a binary string but need not be a

number. I select a very large piece of the Superverse by describing a no

further selection seething foamy fractal pattern of patterns. To minimize

non uniformity and selection within the fractal each pattern is present an

infinite number of times.

Each pattern has a set of isomorphic links which are either active or

possible states of universes.

Now why seething? First there is the history destroying S/N alternation so

each manifestation of the Superverse is an independent pattern of

patterns. Second to avoid a selection during a Superverse manifestation

and the resulting increase in information the active/possible status of

isomorphic links should be an uncoordinated dynamic.

Each link "j" has a self contained set of rules Rj for finding its possible

successor link(s) within the fractal. When one such possible successor

link is "encountered" during the seething it becomes the next state of that

universe. This is a link shift. There is no coordination between links.

Again avoiding selection these rules can be anything from simple to highly

complex, and completely deterministic [only one successor link is

acceptable] to totally random [all links are acceptable successors]. So

which Rj is ours? I believe the answer is a simple set of rules with some

true noise content operating in links to finite patterns.

As to my rationale for a presence of true noise in our universe see my work

in progress, George Levy style FAQ contribution at: [The intro is largely

a repeat of the above.] [ It also fixes a number of problems in the model

for those who have looked at my larger paper before.]

http://www.connix.com/~hjr/style2.html

*> > > > If one allows an infinite repeat of each and every natural number
*

*> is that
*

*> > > > not a uniform distribution?
*

*> > > >
*

*> > > > Hal
*

*> > >
*

*> > >There are many ways of repeating each natural number infinitely often.
*

*> > >But what does this have to do with a uniform distribution? How do you
*

*> > >assign probabilities to numbers?
*

*> >
*

*> > The scenario I was trying to create is where you have numbers with
*

*> > different properties say some short strings, some long strings, some
*

*> simply
*

*> > patterned strings, some with complex patterns, etc. etc. Now on the
*

*> number
*

*> > line numbers with one family of properties may be more or less numerous
*

*> > than numbers with another family of properties. If you put all these
*

*> > numbers in a bag and reach in and pull out a number at random the largest
*

*> > family would have the greatest probability of having a member be the one
*

*> > pulled out - an uneven distribution.
*

*>
*

*>Pull out at random?
*

*>The topic of this thread is precisely: where does
*

*>the randomness come from?
*

Rather it is evident from the above that I think the real question is how

to base our particular isomorphism on "no information". Our instinctive

reaction - to which Russell draws attention - that a random string contains

no information is in this venue perhaps the right assessment. In my model

getting a random sequence is no trouble at all - just use a "do not care"

Rj. The "pull out at random" is a valid reflection of my model since the

seething of both sorts will effect the dwell between link shifts. Any SAS

in a link so effected will not notice this.

*> > Now increase the contents of the bag so that all the original numbers are
*

*> > in there with an infinite number of repeats - all families of properties
*

*> > would have the identical probability of having a member be the one pulled
*

*> > out - an even distribution.
*

*>
*

*>Why? Suppose every 2^n-th number in the bag is n. Then each number is
*

*>repeated infinitely many times. But why should P(17) equal P(42)?
*

In reference to the discussion above the shifting of a link from pattern to

pattern in the fractal described is on a global basis absent preference for

a particular pattern.

*>There is an instructive little exercise: Try to precisely describe
*

*>a probability distribution on the natural numbers such that all are
*

*>equally likely.
*

*>
*

*> > Similar to some properties of my Everything but I use pattern rather than
*

*> > number. All numbers may be patterns but not all patterns are numbers.
*

*>
*

*>Then try to precisely describe a probability distribution on
*

*>infinitely many patterns such that all are equally likely.
*

Remember my point of view - minimum descriptive need [uniform distribution]

is an indicator that a very large piece of the Superverse is being described.

Hal

Received on Sat Apr 07 2001 - 20:07:10 PDT

Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 23:00:57 -0700

Dear Juergen:

At 4/3/01, you wrote:

I believe that attempting an extensive detailed formal description of the

Everything is the wrong approach. IMO - at least in this case - the more

information used to describe, the smaller the thing described.

I became convinced some time ago and before joining this list that the

actual foundation of our experience was "no information". So how does one

describe "no information" or "The Nothing"? Since it is empty it is

anisomorphic.

I hit on the idea that its very emptiness may make it Godelian

incomplete. Since The Nothing can not resolve any question whatsoever the

issue became an effort to construct a meaningful one.

That brought me to the question of its stability. Can The Nothing

endure? I do not see "Time" as entering by the back door via this question

because it is an issue of stasis not flow. I see no way for The Nothing to

escape addressing the issue of the durability i.e. stability of its own

stasis.

Since The Nothing is sans logic to address this issue it must resort to

test by perturbation. IMO the minimum perturbation is for The Nothing to

directly become The Everything. According to the notion that no selection

- i.e. having all information - is identical to having no information - The

Everything is just a different configuration of "no information" - well

almost.

The interesting thing is that the Everything being a perturbation from the

Nothing does not contain the Nothing. Subtracting the Nothing from "all

information" to produce the Everything is the smallest selection

[perturbation] I can think of. The idea being that no information and all

information are identical but the Everything is not quite all

information. For this reason I prefer the name Superverse.

The perturbation is a history destroying event. The Superverse, lacking

knowledge of its origin, has exposure to the same unresolvable question re

its stability. To test this it must execute a perturbation to the

Nothing. Again a history destroying event. So here is a

Superverse/Nothing [S/N] alternation or foundation for our experience.

I also had a description of this alternation idea in an earlier post:

http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2663.html

So having arrived at the idea that a Superverse does show up what do we do

to understand our place in it? This would be making a further

selection. Now the larger the piece of the Superverse you describe the

less information you should need to describe it. So select pieces of this

Superverse that can support our universe until one finds one with the

shortest description. This in a way brought me to the idea of pattern. A

pattern may be represented buy a binary string but need not be a

number. I select a very large piece of the Superverse by describing a no

further selection seething foamy fractal pattern of patterns. To minimize

non uniformity and selection within the fractal each pattern is present an

infinite number of times.

Each pattern has a set of isomorphic links which are either active or

possible states of universes.

Now why seething? First there is the history destroying S/N alternation so

each manifestation of the Superverse is an independent pattern of

patterns. Second to avoid a selection during a Superverse manifestation

and the resulting increase in information the active/possible status of

isomorphic links should be an uncoordinated dynamic.

Each link "j" has a self contained set of rules Rj for finding its possible

successor link(s) within the fractal. When one such possible successor

link is "encountered" during the seething it becomes the next state of that

universe. This is a link shift. There is no coordination between links.

Again avoiding selection these rules can be anything from simple to highly

complex, and completely deterministic [only one successor link is

acceptable] to totally random [all links are acceptable successors]. So

which Rj is ours? I believe the answer is a simple set of rules with some

true noise content operating in links to finite patterns.

As to my rationale for a presence of true noise in our universe see my work

in progress, George Levy style FAQ contribution at: [The intro is largely

a repeat of the above.] [ It also fixes a number of problems in the model

for those who have looked at my larger paper before.]

http://www.connix.com/~hjr/style2.html

Rather it is evident from the above that I think the real question is how

to base our particular isomorphism on "no information". Our instinctive

reaction - to which Russell draws attention - that a random string contains

no information is in this venue perhaps the right assessment. In my model

getting a random sequence is no trouble at all - just use a "do not care"

Rj. The "pull out at random" is a valid reflection of my model since the

seething of both sorts will effect the dwell between link shifts. Any SAS

in a link so effected will not notice this.

In reference to the discussion above the shifting of a link from pattern to

pattern in the fractal described is on a global basis absent preference for

a particular pattern.

Remember my point of view - minimum descriptive need [uniform distribution]

is an indicator that a very large piece of the Superverse is being described.

Hal

Received on Sat Apr 07 2001 - 20:07:10 PDT

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