Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 20:14:34 -0500

Hi Pete:

At 04:50 PM 11/14/2004, you wrote:
>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?

It is the same idea as Godel's approach to showing the incompleteness of
arithmetic. The structure of arithmetic was asked a question [the truth or
falseness of a grammatically valid statement] it could not answer
[resolve]. The Nothing can not escape being asked if it is stable or not
and has no ability to resolve the 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?

Yes but the "you" is unnecessary.


>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?

The Nothing can not escape answering the stability question so it must try
to add "structure" [information] to itself until it has an answer. The
only source of this structure is the ALL . Thus the Everything boundary
must be breached.

Since the Nothing is however, essential, it is renewed, refreshed,
reestablished, resurrected - however you want to look at it the Nothing can
not vanish from the system.

Hal
Received on Sun Nov 14 2004 - 20:49:13 PST