My model presented more traditionally

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:51:04 -0700

The following is a new effort to present my model in a more traditional
way.

The basic idea is that the concepts of "nothing" and "everything" [i.e. a
maximum expression of "something"] are not totally antagonistic but are
actually synergistic.

DEFINITIONS:

1) Information: The potential to parse [herein "parse" is used to mean to
divide as with a boundary].

2) Factual: A particular parsing. [like: {red, green, blue}]

3) Counterfactual: A factual [factual B] that to some degree effects the
parsing of another factual [factual A] {like: brown}. Note that a factual
that has a counterfactual is itself a counterfactual.

4) Complete set of counterfactuals: A set of counterfactuals that leaves no
member factual uneffected in any of its aspects. {like: gray}


AXIOMS:

1) A void consisting of the absence of factuals herein called the "Nothing"
exists.

2) A collection of all complete sets of counterfactuals herein called the
"Everything" exists.

3) There are no other existences at or above the level of the Everything
and the Nothing.


PROPOSITIONS:

Proposition 1: The Everything and the Nothing are counterfactuals.

Proof: The Everything is a parsing since it is a collection of a particular
kind of factual. The Nothing is a parsing since it excludes all factuals
from itself. These two parsings effect each other to some degree. The
existence of the Everything would tend to put a factual in the void and
thereby suppress the concept of the Nothing and the existence of the
Nothing would tend to suppress the necessity for the Everything - no
factuals equals no parsing potential. Thus Proposition 1 is true by
Definitions 2 & 3 and Axioms 1 & 2.

In addition to the suppression, The Everything and the Nothing also enhance
each other to some degree as follows.

Proposition 2: The Everything contains the Nothing.

Proof: True by Proposition 1 and Axioms 1, 2, & 3. Axiom 3 makes the
Everything/Nothing pair a complete set of counterfactuals.

Proposition 3: The Everything contains itself:

Proof: True by Proposition 1 and Axioms 2 and 3.

Proposition 4: The Everything is infinitely nested with itself and the Nothing.

Proof: True by Propositions 2 and 3.

Interpretation: The Everything and the Nothing form a synergistic pair -
their simultaneous existence is "easier" than either existence by itself.

Proposition 5: The nesting has a dynamic.

Proof: A fixed parsing between the Nothing and the Everything would
constitute the presence of an uneffected factual within the Everything
contradicting Axiom 2.

Possible interpretation:

Proposition 5 can be realized if the Nothing/Everything parsing "surface"
is composed of a dynamic mix of the "surfaces" of the counterfactuals
constituting the Everything. The counterfactuals on this "surface" are -
while so situated - slightly less effected than when they are remote from
this "surface". It is the patterns formed by the shifting mix of
"surface" counterfactuals that are interpreted as universes.

To support this interpretation the following axioms are incorporated into
the model.

Axiom 4: The members of a complete set of counterfactuals must be
intertwined as in a foamy fractal to sustain the effectiveness of the set.

Axiom 5: Universes sustain themselves by finding a succeeding pattern on
this "surface" that is consistent with their individual rules of state
succession as their current pattern vanishes with the dynamic.

Proposition 6: There is no restriction on the structure of the various
individual universe state succession rules.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5.

Interpretative consequent: Some of the rules would have a "Do not care"
component in terms of the selection of a succeeding pattern. This is the
same as the rules of these universes allowing an external random oracle
input or true noise into the state succession process for such universes.

Proposition 7: All universes are subject to true noise.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5.

Interpretation: Even if their rules have no "Do not care" component such
universes must nevertheless be subject to an external random oracle.

Hal
Received on Thu Oct 10 2002 - 20:53:54 PDT