- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: H J Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:07:59 -0700

Further improvememts.

Proposal:

The concepts of "Nothing" and "Everything" [1def] are not antagonistic,

but are actually synergistic and bootstrap "existence".

Justification:

AXIOMS:

Referring first to [1def] through [6def]:

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 [3def]

and [4def] 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. Even more focused is to view the synergism as being the

"existence" and Axioms 1, 2, and 3 continuously bootstrap each other to

sustain it.

The Everything/Nothing nesting is not considered as having dimensionality

or of being in or on a dimension, but rather as an infinite entanglement of

potential.

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 maintain the

complete "effectiveness" only when uninterruptedly intertwined as in a

foamy fractal .

Axiom 5: Universes sustain themselves by finding a succeeding pattern on

the Everything/Nothing "surface" that is consistent with their individual

rules of state succession as their current pattern vanishes with the dynamic.

Proposition 6: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "A fixed

evolution of the parsing between the Nothing and the Everything would....".

Proposition 7: There is no restriction on the structure of the various

individual universe state succession rules.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "Any such

restriction would....".

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 [7def] into the state succession process for such

universes.

Proposition 8: All universes are subject to true noise.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "By

Proposition 7 at least some universes are subject to true noise by their

own internal rules. If true noise susceptibility of universes is indeed

restricted to "some" it would .....".

Interpretation: Even if their rules have no "Do not care" component such

universes must nevertheless be subject to an external random oracle.

There would be two general types of universes. Type #1 have internal rules

that do not allow true noise as they evolve and type #2 have rules that

do. Both are actually subject to true noise since the dynamic of the

Everything/Nothing synergism is the apex of the overall system's

hierarchical dynamic and dominates the internal dynamic rules of all

interpretations within the synergism. There is also a bidirectional flow

between type #1 and type #2 since the right dose of true noise will switch

the type of any universe.

NOTES

[1def] Everything: Intended as a maximum expression of "something" - see

Axiom 2.

[2def] Information: The potential to parse [herein "parse" is used to mean

to divide as with a boundary].

[3def] Factual: A particular parsing. [like: {red, green, blue}]

[4def] Counterfactual: A factual [factual B] that to some degree effects

the parsing of another factual [factual A] {like the red, green, blue

combination resulting in brown}. Note that a factual that has a

counterfactual is itself a counterfactual.

[5def] Complete set of counterfactuals: A set of counterfactuals that

leaves no member factual uneffected in any of its aspects. {like: gray}

[6def] "Effect": An all inclusive range of influences between

counterfactuals. [One type of influence between counterfactuals would be

where "existence" encompasses two logic systems such that in one the

statement "A" is true and in the other the statement "Not A" is true. This

may be far narrower than the range of influences that may be necessarily

encompassed in "effect" as used herein.]

[7def] True 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 solely 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 via its own internal rules.

Hal

Received on Thu Oct 17 2002 - 21:11:02 PDT

Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:07:59 -0700

Further improvememts.

Proposal:

The concepts of "Nothing" and "Everything" [1def] are not antagonistic,

but are actually synergistic and bootstrap "existence".

Justification:

AXIOMS:

Referring first to [1def] through [6def]:

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 [3def]

and [4def] 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. Even more focused is to view the synergism as being the

"existence" and Axioms 1, 2, and 3 continuously bootstrap each other to

sustain it.

The Everything/Nothing nesting is not considered as having dimensionality

or of being in or on a dimension, but rather as an infinite entanglement of

potential.

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 maintain the

complete "effectiveness" only when uninterruptedly intertwined as in a

foamy fractal .

Axiom 5: Universes sustain themselves by finding a succeeding pattern on

the Everything/Nothing "surface" that is consistent with their individual

rules of state succession as their current pattern vanishes with the dynamic.

Proposition 6: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "A fixed

evolution of the parsing between the Nothing and the Everything would....".

Proposition 7: There is no restriction on the structure of the various

individual universe state succession rules.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "Any such

restriction would....".

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 [7def] into the state succession process for such

universes.

Proposition 8: All universes are subject to true noise.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "By

Proposition 7 at least some universes are subject to true noise by their

own internal rules. If true noise susceptibility of universes is indeed

restricted to "some" it would .....".

Interpretation: Even if their rules have no "Do not care" component such

universes must nevertheless be subject to an external random oracle.

There would be two general types of universes. Type #1 have internal rules

that do not allow true noise as they evolve and type #2 have rules that

do. Both are actually subject to true noise since the dynamic of the

Everything/Nothing synergism is the apex of the overall system's

hierarchical dynamic and dominates the internal dynamic rules of all

interpretations within the synergism. There is also a bidirectional flow

between type #1 and type #2 since the right dose of true noise will switch

the type of any universe.

NOTES

[1def] Everything: Intended as a maximum expression of "something" - see

Axiom 2.

[2def] Information: The potential to parse [herein "parse" is used to mean

to divide as with a boundary].

[3def] Factual: A particular parsing. [like: {red, green, blue}]

[4def] Counterfactual: A factual [factual B] that to some degree effects

the parsing of another factual [factual A] {like the red, green, blue

combination resulting in brown}. Note that a factual that has a

counterfactual is itself a counterfactual.

[5def] Complete set of counterfactuals: A set of counterfactuals that

leaves no member factual uneffected in any of its aspects. {like: gray}

[6def] "Effect": An all inclusive range of influences between

counterfactuals. [One type of influence between counterfactuals would be

where "existence" encompasses two logic systems such that in one the

statement "A" is true and in the other the statement "Not A" is true. This

may be far narrower than the range of influences that may be necessarily

encompassed in "effect" as used herein.]

[7def] True 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 solely 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 via its own internal rules.

Hal

Received on Thu Oct 17 2002 - 21:11:02 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:07 PST
*