Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Pete Carlton <pmcarlton.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:50:11 -0800

I am not quite sure how justification (5) is meant to hang on this
structure. Where does the idea of asking questions come from? Why is
the "Nothing" supposed to be the kind of thing that should asked
questions in the first place? Why is the fact that Nothing can't
answer a question any more important from the fact that, e.g., a rock
can't answer a question?

Do you mean something like: if you want to know some fact about the
Nothing, you can't examine the Nothing to find your answer, since it's
not there?

I also don't understand why the Nothing should be the kind of thing
that penetrates boundaries, attempts to complete itself, etc. It seems
that your Nothing gets up to quite a lot of action considering that
it's Nothing. Are these actions metaphors for something else, and if
so, what?


On Nov 13, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote:

> I would appreciate comments on the following.
>
> Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics
> are the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.
>
> Justification:
>
> 1) Given definitions 1, 2, and 3:
>
> 2) These definitions are interdependent because you can not have one
> without the whole set.
>
> 3) Notice that "Defining" is the same as establishing a boundary
> between what a thing is and what it is not. This defines a second
> thing: the is not. A thing can not be defined in isolation.
>
> 4) These definitions are unavoidable because at least one of the [All,
> Nothing] pair must exist. Since they form an [is, is not] pair they
> bootstrap each other into existence.
>
> 5) The Nothing has a logical problem: since it is empty of concept 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 All in an attempt to
> complete itself. This could be viewed as a spontaneous symmetry
> breaking.
>
> 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 All as the old example of Nothing tries to complete
> itself. This divides the All into two evolving Somethings - evolving
> multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are "contracting" -
> loosing concepts.
>
> 9) Notice that the All 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 complete conceptual
> ensemble content of the All. Thus the All is internally
> inconsistent.
>
> 10) Thus the motion of a shock wave boundary in the All must be
> consistent with this inconsistency - That is the motion is at least
> partly random.
>
> 11) Some of these evolving Somethings - multiverses will admit being
> modeled as a computer computation but with true noise - definition 5.
>
> Definitions:
>
> 1) The All: The complete conceptual ensemble (including the concept of
> itself). Some concepts and collections of concepts may or may not
> have a separate "physical reality".
>
> 2) The Nothing: That which is empty of all concepts.
>
> 3) The Everything: That which contains the All and separates it from
> the Nothing. Thus it also contains the Nothing.
>
> 4 A Something: A division of the All into two subparts.
>
> 5) True noise: The random content of the evolution of the Somethings
> introduces random information into each component of a multiverse from
> a source external to that component.
>
> Hal
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 14 2004 - 16:58:36 PST