Error in "Refinements to my model"

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2001 21:25:06 -0800

Sorry, I missed some editing errors in the lead in to the referenced post.

I meant to say:

I currently define information as fact(s) that are absent counter facts.

Example of counter facts [sort of]: In our universe the rules dictate that
any sufficiently large mass wants to assume a shape that is essentially a
sphere. There are numerous other possibilities that could be the rule in
some other universe. The ensemble of all these various rules is a complete
set of counter facts that contains no information re this shape issue.

Call facts that are absent counter facts factuals.

Call counter facts counterfactuals

A fact that has counterfactuals is itself a counterfactual.

The objective is to model our universe using no information that is by
using just complete sets of counterfactuals.

First examine the following:

"The Everything which is defined as the ensemble of all counterfactuals
exists."

This existence by itself would be a factual and violate the objective.

Now let us examine two counterfactuals.

1) The Everything which is the ensemble of all counterfactuals exists.

2) The Nothing which is the absence of all facts both counterfactual and
factual exists.

The Everything and the Nothing are antipodal representations of no
information.

The existence of either is the counterfactual to the existence of the other
and so the dual existence is allowed under the objective since it
represents no information.

While the Nothing can not contain the Everything nor itself by definition
and the Everything can not contain one or the other, can the Everything
contain both? At the moment I think it can and this just produces an
infinite nesting.

That is the initial "mathematical" foundation.

Next is the exploration of the manifestation of this foundation while
defining physical universes as isomorphisms to this manifestation.

At any nesting level if the manifestation was unchanging or structurally
sequenced that would be a factual.

If the manifestation at any given level is a random sequence of piece after
piece of the Everything of that level each of which would be automatically
accompanied by the counterfactual residual portion of the associated
Nothing there would be no factual.

Evolving universes must be isomorphic to a portion of each successive
manifest counterfactual. The nesting would allow an infinite number of
such universes.

The rules of isomorphic shift [the laws of physics] for each such universe
must have some random [true noise] content in order to sustain the
succession of isomorphisms to the random sequence of counterfactuals.

Hal
Received on Sat Dec 15 2001 - 18:29:20 PST