Re: Draft Philosophy Paper

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:00:55 -0800

Dear Russell:

As to any surprise that we are in the universe we are in I see none. It is
just chance.

My previous post did not go into the part of my approach as to why a
universe should evolve. What drives this dynamic inside an Everything?

The process I have currently set up for this happened to resemble when I
was done the life process of survival of the fit. The universes themselves
may qualify as life. It is then not surprising that some could for some
set of sequential states support large internal structures that follow the
same pattern.

I currently have convinced myself that there is no observation process on
the part of such structures. They simply are the sum total of past
interactions with other structures in that universe across the boundary
that defines their absence of isolation. The only influence such
structures have on the embedding system is this interaction which is not
observation but passive accommodation to state to state transition events
at the boundary.

I then base the rest i.e. predictions as to the nature of our universe on
the ideas:

1) That some universes are sufficiently well behaved for some set of
sequential states such that each state in the sequence has a
deterministicly consistent prior state. This state is found using the
rules of that universe absent any true noise component they may
allow. This state need not be the actual prior state.

2) That the "state" for some universes is "physically" a pattern of
discrete points in a space - in our case a three space.

In the end, structures within a particular universe interact with their
entire universe so their evolution may influence the survival of their
universe. However, due to the nested nature of the Everything and the
nature of the process driving the evolution of universes [basically an
exercise in finding an allowed next pattern on a randomly shifting
Nothing/Everything boundary] the extinction of one universe [a failure to
find such a new pattern before the current pattern itself is disrupted by
the boundary shifts] does not influence the success or failure of its
copies to find an allowed next state.

Hal

At 2/21/02, you wrote:
>The information is contained within the Anthropic Principle
>itself. Resource constraints that any observer must have impose a bias
>towards simpler descriptions - that is the thrust of Alistair's and my
>argument. Without the AP, the Everything is indeed devoid of any
>structure whatsoever. I never understood why you persevere in denying
>a place for the AP.
>
> Cheers
Received on Wed Feb 20 2002 - 18:04:00 PST