Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 18:43:31 -0400

The following is a combination of several of my previous ideas which forces
me to raise a question re "measure" in this thread.

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 pair or boundary between the "Nothing" and
"Everything" partners is randomly dynamic - equivalent to a random sequence
of normal reals.

5) A universal dovetailer computer [the computer plus its collective
dynamic input and output] is a good way to model a selector of a random
sequence of normal reals.

6) Notice that the "Everything" also has a logical problem. Looking at the
same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible
answers. Just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal
information which is not an aspect of the "Everything". Thus the
"Everything" is inconsistent.

7) Thus the entire system while being - apparently - the only game in town
is also both incomplete and inconsistent.

8) Universes are interpretations of sections of the normal real string.

9) Now a question is how many of these interpretations have internal rules
that allow input from an external random oracle? If we are to maintain a
zero information system then the answer must be a randomly changing
percentage. So all interpretations must be able change character i.e. be
subject to an external random oracle the internal rules of the particular
interpretation notwithstanding.

10) What this means is that there remains some information in the system -
the computer itself is incorrectly defined - to get rid of this problem the
computer has to function like any computer I ever used - it must make
random errors.

I do not see how one can extract from this any "measure" re anything which
to me seems reasonable since there should be no information in there anyway.

Hal







Hal
Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 18:47:42 PDT