Re: Bruno's UDA argument

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 22:11:08 -0700

Dear Hal:

The idea that the Everything does not contain the UD appears self
contradictory.

That said the Everything as a system is generally thought of by some at
least as containing no information. [Otherwise where did this information
come from?] To sustain this requirement it must contain counterfactuals to
the UD. Among these would be universe generators whose foundation is
anything but the UD [or any ensemble of UDs].

Having reached that result, at least some of these generators would form an
ensemble subject - by their internal structure - to the injection of
external random noise originating in the remainder of the Everything.

Is it possible to sustain a no information Everything if there is a
selection in which this latter ensemble is the only generators subject to
such noise? The very concept of any selection within the Everything
necessarily places information within the Everything and must thus be
disallowed.

My conclusion is the all generators within the Everything are subject to
such noise by some mechanism or another.

Further I think that from this I would have to conclude that no
differential measure of any sort [actually a selection result] between
universes can arise over the ensemble of all universes.

As to consciousness I do not believe a decent definition of it is extant
but I do believe for obvious reasons that - whatever it is - it is only
supported in a universe with noise of external origin there being no other
kind of universe - IMO.

All of this is OK as far as I can tell since one can see our universe
inside the complete ensemble but I see it as being in the part of the
ensemble that contains those universes that are subject to the noise by
their internal structure as opposed to the UD type of generator which would
be subject to this noise to avoid a selection.

There is no reason that I can see why some of these universes subject to
noise by their internal structure would not evolve in a way that appears
[internally] to follow simple rules expressible in a mathematics. I also
believe there are easy ways to demonstrate that features of our universe
can be based on such a foundation.

Further I do not see that universes evolving in a highly random way can not
be an alternate base for a universe evolving by simple rather well behaved
rules if we allow that intervening states inconsistent with such a view go
unnoticed by an observer - whatever that is - that considers itself to be
in the supposed well behaved universe.

Hal

   
Received on Mon Jul 22 2002 - 19:13:08 PDT