Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:43:53 -0500

I received the following comments from Eric Cavalcanti but did not see them
post on the Everything list.


> 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.
>
>But it's not as wave-handing as you make it sound.
>Godel's theorem has a precise meaning and proof
>given the axioms of Mathematics. It works within those
>axioms, and has no meaning outside that scope.

>If you want to use a similar argument, you need to
>carefully define what you mean by "It's the same idea
>as Godel's approach".

Godel's theorem was about arithmetic but the idea behind the theorem was to
ask a system a question meaningful to that system which it could not in its
present state resolve. That is what is happening in my model. My Nothing
can not avoid determining its stability [i.e. its persistence] but can not
make this determination without changing.

>It may sound pedantic, but the problem is that you are
>trying to create a theory that describes everything, and
>therefore it's desirable that its constructs are
>self-evident and certainly required that they are
>self-consistent.

The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self
evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once
you notice it].

The All is not internally consistent because it is complete. What do you
mean by "self-consistent" in this case. In my view there is no need for
universes to be consistent. See #10 and #11 of the original post.


>What sense does it make to say that the Nothing must
>"answer a question" if no question is actually asked?
>As Pete Carlton said, I believe that you are using a
>metaphor for something else, but then you need to
>carefully explain what it is, without the metaphor.

See above for the unavoidable meaningful question.


> > >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.
>
>What is the "stability question"? Why is it that the
>Nothing "cannot escape answering it?"

See above

> What does it mean
>for the Nothing to "penetrate" the boundary,

There are three components in the system:

The All
The Nothing
Boundaries

The only component that may be capable of answering the question is the
All. Thus the Nothing must breach the boundary between them [the
Everything]. It can not avoid this because it persists or it does
not. When this happens an evolving multiverse [a Something] and a renewed
Nothing are formed and the cycle starts again.

>and in what
>sense does the Nothing "complete itself" in this process?

It adds information that resides in the All.

>What is information?

I have else where defined information as:

The potential to divide as with a boundary. An Example: The information in
a Formal Axiomatic System [FAS] divides true statements from not true
statements [relevant to that FAS].

>How does Nothing know when it has
>found an answer?

A Something pays no active attention to what it was. In fact it can not
because each new added bit of information creates a new system. This
continues until it is a one for one with the All.

>How can a Nothing become something else?

It must do so by filling itself with information. - see above -

>What does it
>become if it does? A different Nothing?

It becomes a Something i.e. an evolving multiverse as outlined in the
original post.

>How can you
>distinguish between the former and the latter?

It will no longer meet the definition of Nothing.

Hal
Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 16:52:10 PST