The statement "it contains no information" IS information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
(In "my" Plenitude story the "no info - infinite invariance total symmetry"
requires correction in this spirit. The "infinite variety" dose not fit: it
intrinsically includes repetitions of similars (and that is a major point
for generating universes) which (transitionally) falls out from both the
infinite symmetry and the infinite invariance.
Which is the fulguration for universe-formation, as observable complexity.
Sorry for the digression: I am reworking my 2000 text in this sense.
John Mikes
<jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
"
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"
----- Original Message -----
From: "H J Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: Bruno's UDA argument
> 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 Tue Jul 23 2002 - 09:08:41 PDT