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

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:14:30 -0400

Dear Hal,

Could the Nothing be a generalization of the notion of the Null or Empty

set?

One question that I have is "what moves?" It seems that I am merely

re-asking Zeno's question...

How is motion, whether it is the UD moving infinitely slowly from string

to string or your example of a "shackwave", what is the reason "MOTION"

exists? What necessitates motion and change a priori?

Stephen

----- Original Message -----

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

To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:18 PM

Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

*> Hi Bruno:
*

*>
*

*> At 09:34 AM 6/30/2004, you wrote:
*

*>
*

*> >If your system is inconsistent then it is obviously Turing computable
*

*> >(just write a generator
*

*> >of ALL arithmetical formula).
*

*> >But I am not sure your system is inconsistent. Well, I am not sure it is
*

a

*> >"system", or
*

*> >perhaps you just fail to present it as such, probably.
*

*> >
*

*> >
*

*> >Bruno
*

*>
*

*> As for my model and its system I was referring to my post of June 8 which
*

*> because I can not get on the escribe site to get the URL right now I have
*

*> copied below.
*

*>
*

*> Ok so if I accept that the Everything half of the system is Truing
*

*> computable what about the Nothing half which is the incomplete part. In
*

*> this case there is no output.
*

*>
*

*> So if indeed evolving metaverses are the result of an "interaction"
*

between

*> the two then they can only be incomplete and evolve inconsistently.
*

*>
*

*> xxxxxxxxxx
*

*>
*

*> Prior post:
*

*>
*

*> 1) Given that the following definitions are sound:
*

*>
*

*> The Everything: That which contains all.
*

*>
*

*> The Nothing: That which is empty of all.
*

*>
*

*> A Something: A division of the Everything into two subparts.
*

*>
*

*> 2) These are unavoidable because at least one must exist
*

*>
*

*> 3) They are interdependent so that you can not have one without the whole
*

set.

*>
*

*> 4) Notice that "Definition" is the same as establishing a boundary between
*

*> what a thing is and another thing that is all that the first thing is not.
*

*>
*

*> 5) The Nothing has a logical problem: It can not answer any meaningful
*

*> question about itself including the unavoidable one of its own stability.
*

*>
*

*> 6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point
*

*> "penetrate" the boundary between itself and the Everything in an attempt
*

to

*> complete itself.
*

*>
*

*> 7) However, the boundary is permanent as required by the definitions and a
*

*> Nothing remains.
*

*>
*

*> 8) Thus the "penetration" process repeats in an always was and always will
*

*> be manner.
*

*>
*

*> 8) The boundary "penetration" produces a shock wave [a boundary] that
*

moves

*> into the Everything as the old example of Nothing tries to complete
*

*> itself. This divides the Everything into two evolving somethings -
*

*> evolving multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are contracting.
*

*>
*

*> 9) Notice that the "Everything" also has a logical problem. Looking at
*

the

*> same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible
*

*> answers because just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal
*

*> information which is not an aspect of the "all" content of the
*

*> "Everything". Thus the "Everything" is inconsistent.
*

*>
*

*> 10) Thus the motion of a shock wave boundary in the Everything must be
*

*> consistent with this inconsistency - That is the motion is at least partly
*

*> random.
*

*>
*

*> 11) Some of these evolving Somethings will admit being modeled as UD's
*

with

*> true noise.
*

Received on Wed Jun 30 2004 - 13:27:48 PDT

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:14:30 -0400

Dear Hal,

Could the Nothing be a generalization of the notion of the Null or Empty

set?

One question that I have is "what moves?" It seems that I am merely

re-asking Zeno's question...

How is motion, whether it is the UD moving infinitely slowly from string

to string or your example of a "shackwave", what is the reason "MOTION"

exists? What necessitates motion and change a priori?

Stephen

----- Original Message -----

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

To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:18 PM

Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

a

between

set.

to

moves

the

with

Received on Wed Jun 30 2004 - 13:27:48 PDT

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