Re: My model presented more traditionally

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 15:29:30 -0700

I post this again to fix a small but important error and to sustain a
single thread title.

Proposition 8: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5.


"Effect": I tried here to select a word that encompassed a sufficiently
wide range of influences so that in the end the Everything/Nothing pair
summed up to no net information. One type of influence between
counterfactuals would be where the Everything contains two logic systems
such that in one the statement "A" is true and in the other the statement
"Not A" is true. I see this as too narrow.

"Noise": In the model, current states of universes are interpretations of
the patterns of the counterfactuals that happen to be currently on the
Everything/Nothing surface. The patterns shift randomly and a universe has
to find a new compatible pattern to survive. A universe that has rules of
state succession that allows for portions of the new pattern to be
determined by the shifting dynamic - a "Do not care" content to the rules -
rather than by the rules acting on the data of the current state is a
universe whose succession of states is subject to the external random
dynamic [external random oracle] to some degree. This is true noise
injection into that universe.

"Nesting": I do not see the nesting I arrive at as having dimensionality or
of being in or on a dimension. I see it as rather an infinite entanglement
of potential.

Hal
Received on Sat Oct 12 2002 - 15:32:22 PDT