Re: Self without context???

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:32:12 -0700

Dear Bruno and Stephen:

Since I think I have just about finished explaining my model to myself
perhaps I can now do a better job of explaining it to others. So here goes.

1) The first thing I consider in need of basis is: There is a dynamic
within the system [The machine(s) change state].


I start my basis for this with my own concepts for factuals and
counterfactuals.

A factual in my model is a piece of information. An example would be: All
numbers exist.
A counterfactual in my model is a piece of information that is the "not" or
negation of part or all of a factual. An example would be: All numbers do
not exist.

A factual that is completely negated by a collection of counterfactuals is
itself a counterfactual. Together these counterfactuals form a set.

The first level of the model is the ensemble of all counterfactuals. It
contains no information. Call that the Everything. Now we may have forged
a problem. To say: The Everything exists is a factual. This by itself is
not in keeping with the objective of working with a zero information
system. Does it have a counterfactual. Yes: The Nothing defined as the
absence of factuals of any sort. So we allow that the Nothing also exists.

Now note that since both the Everything and the Nothing are counterfactuals
they are both in the Everything. The Everything is a member of itself -
over and over. This association is thus infinitely nested as is the
boundary between the Everything and the Nothing.

Now switch to the idea of selection. The Everything can contain no
selection since any selection would constitute a factual that is absent a
counterfactual which is not allowed.

Thus the Everything/Nothing boundary must not have a selected configuration
or a selected evolution - it must randomly shift. The shifting boundary
exposes some of the counterfactuals in the Everything to the
Nothing. During this exposure such counterfactuals approach an incomplete
negation - their negation becomes fuzzy. What we consider our reality [our
universe] is one of an infinite number of similar realities that are
emergent as isomorphisms to this randomly shifting fuzz [a seething foamy
fractal].

2) The next thing I see in need of discussion is whether any members of
this ensemble of universes are in some way subject to input from the
underlying random dynamic. This input would be as input from a random
external oracle - true noise.

The primary tool I use is the need to avoid a selection. The conclusion is
that either none of them are subject to this input or they all are. To
have some subject to this input is not allowed if selection is to be avoided.

Is there any reason that a universe might be subject to this noise? A
universe in this model that has an evolutionary history must have found a
series of successive isomorphic matches to the random dynamic of the
Everything/Nothing boundary. While noise free universes might have short
histories, those with long histories would tend to be those subject to
noise. It would be a bit like natural selection for such a trait but is
really an initial feature. I take this to be sufficient basis given the
need to avoid selection to hold in the model that all evolving universes
are subject to true noise.

3) The next thing to explore is the nature of the rules in each universe
that guide its range of next possible isomorphisms [states]. Each current
state has its own such range.

More later.

Hal
Received on Sat Jun 15 2002 - 18:41:29 PDT