Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ...

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