RE: In one page or less

From: Charles Goodwin <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:16:28 +1200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:hjr.domain.name.hidden]
>
> This is a simple and short effort to present my current
> ideas. To aid
> communication it is not intended to follow an established means of
> mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I
> hope it reads ok.

Please let me know if I've misunderstood...

> 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information."

That's a good starting point. It implies a sort of information symmetry in which every bits of information is cancelled out
somewhere else.

> 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information:
>
> Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest
> must receive the response "yes".

I don't understand this bit at all, sorry!

> 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more
> component(s),
> i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an
> ensemble of all
> possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information.
>
> 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with
> respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the
> system again
> violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible.

Why is no neutralisation possible for a stable "Nothing" ? Can't it be balanced by another stable "Something" (or "Nothing",
perhaps) ?

> 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest
> ensemble of all
> possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are
> violations of the
> postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing".
>
> 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the
> "Nothing" and the
> other component(s).
>
> 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other
> component" which is
> either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of
> "Somethings"
> is a selection representing additional information
> which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information
> present in the "Nothing".
>
> 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate:
>
> a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly
> selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble.
>
> b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble
> must be random
> or the selection process is additional information in
> violation of the
> postulate.
>
> c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual
> "Somethings" so
> there can be no endless loops of repeats which would
> represent additional
> information and are forbidden by the postulate.
>
> -------------------
>
> Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some
> portion of each
> successive "Something".
>
> Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the
> emptiness or gap
> between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution.
>
> Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of
> isomorphism
> succession find no home in this model because the gap for
> such universes
> would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing"
> "Something"
> alternation.
>
> The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It
> contains no
> information and it can not contain enduring fully
> deterministic universes.

This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you have time could you post something which is more
understandable to the layman?

Charles
Received on Wed Sep 12 2001 - 17:13:43 PDT