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

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:42:05 -0400

The following is a combination of two of my previous ideas which together

simplify my attempt to "prove" that a computer is a good model of the

substrate of a multi universe venue for our apparent sequence of states.

1) The first step is to examine the act of definition. In this case the

definition of a "Nothing". Any definition process simultaneously defines

two entities. The definition is a boundary between an entity of interest

and the leftover building blocks. In the special case of a "Nothing" the

left over is an "Everything". Thus the two are dependent partners. Since

the "Everything" contains all information the definition pair must itself

specify all information and can be represented by a normal real.

2) A "Nothing" has an interesting logical problem: It can not answer any

meaningful question about itself. Assuming there is a relevant meaningful

question a "Nothing" would be incomplete. An inescapable meaningful

question is its own stability. This is not only meaningful it is

impossible to avoid answering.

3) To attempt to answer this question a "Nothing" randomly and

spontaneously "decays" towards an "Everything" to resolve its

incompleteness. But this is not sustainable since an "Everything" is not

independent of a "Nothing". Therefore a "Nothing" rebounds from the decay.

4) Thus the definition or boundary between the "Nothing" and "Everything"

pair is randomly dynamic equivalent to a random sequence of normal reals.

5) A universal computer is a good way to model a selector of a random

sequence of normal reals.

Hal

Received on Fri Apr 30 2004 - 20:45:36 PDT

Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 20:42:05 -0400

The following is a combination of two of my previous ideas which together

simplify my attempt to "prove" that a computer is a good model of the

substrate of a multi universe venue for our apparent sequence of states.

1) The first step is to examine the act of definition. In this case the

definition of a "Nothing". Any definition process simultaneously defines

two entities. The definition is a boundary between an entity of interest

and the leftover building blocks. In the special case of a "Nothing" the

left over is an "Everything". Thus the two are dependent partners. Since

the "Everything" contains all information the definition pair must itself

specify all information and can be represented by a normal real.

2) A "Nothing" has an interesting logical problem: It can not answer any

meaningful question about itself. Assuming there is a relevant meaningful

question a "Nothing" would be incomplete. An inescapable meaningful

question is its own stability. This is not only meaningful it is

impossible to avoid answering.

3) To attempt to answer this question a "Nothing" randomly and

spontaneously "decays" towards an "Everything" to resolve its

incompleteness. But this is not sustainable since an "Everything" is not

independent of a "Nothing". Therefore a "Nothing" rebounds from the decay.

4) Thus the definition or boundary between the "Nothing" and "Everything"

pair is randomly dynamic equivalent to a random sequence of normal reals.

5) A universal computer is a good way to model a selector of a random

sequence of normal reals.

Hal

Received on Fri Apr 30 2004 - 20:45:36 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*