Re: Consistency? + Programs for G, G*, ...

From: Hal Ruhl <hjr.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:04:45 -0700

Dear George:

1) By "alter ego" I mean something on the order of "constant companion"
which is a meaning in my dictionary.

2) By "know" I mean does the system contain a resolution to a particular
meaningful question.

The Nothing contains no information so it "knows" only itself: Nothing? =>
true.

3) I mean stability in the engineering sense. It is the only other
relevant question I can see and the Nothing must resolve it. It is a
meaningful question for the Nothing. Since it has no information the
question of stability can be addressed only experimentally by a
perturbation to the Nothing.

The smallest and perhaps only available perturbation the Nothing can
experience is to become the other manifestation of no information - the
Everything.

When this takes place it replaces the Nothing absolutely. The Nothing is
not a stable state.

However, the Everything has similar "properties": Everything? => true.
Stability? => testable only.

The smallest and perhaps only perturbation to the Everything is to become
the Nothing. This replaces the Everything absolutely. The Everything is
not a stable state.

etc. etc. etc.

Each time the Everything is manifest it must in some way be a "different"
Everything or a selection will have been made resulting in non zero
information in the Nothing/Everything system. This seems possible based on
the idea of meta pattern - geometry - rather than an ensemble of bit strings.

5) The two "constant companions" are "antipodal" expressions of no information:
Pole #1: Nothing? => true.
Pole #2: Everything? => true.

Regardless of the eventual usefulness of these ideas I really do not see
how they are so hard to follow.

Hal
Received on Thu Aug 16 2001 - 20:11:03 PDT