Fw: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:46:18 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "John M" <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model


> Hi, Hall, (to your post below and many preceding that):
>
> I feel there is a semantic game going on." ALL" we know of (or: can know
> of), or ALL that 'exists' (another restriction) or ALL just undefined to
> 'everything? In most minds the restrictions in thinking is considering
this
> (our) universe- world. Even expanded into thinking in terms of a
Multiverse
> sticks of similar universes. A BIG restriction.
> "My" Multiverse consists of universes unlimited in number and qualia
> (process capability, whatever). ALL in my mind is an invariant multitude
of
> processes (sorry, I am not on ontological "is" bases, rather in 'changes'
> (whatever does change) resulting in the final infinite i.e. invariant
> symmetry of total multitude.
> I never used this 'ALL' term.
> I used as a beginning the "nothingness" which, by identifying ITSELF as
> such, became a "somethingness" as realizing the nothingness. What meant a
> "difference" which I call: "existence". Acknowledged difference is the
> "information" and here we are: a system. The details come in unlimitedly.
>
> Concepts: I cannot blame you for not 'believeing' in such things: they are
> limited views of topically restricted 'parts' of the total (I call it
> "wholeness") and such 'models' can be formulated as we wish.
>
> Arithmetic in my mind is ONE plane of the views: based on the quale of
> quantizability. I still did not develop my idea of mathematics without
> quantitative connotations, nobody showed the way to such understanding
> (although I asked many plavces - many times). The qualia, however, of the
> totality, consist of unlimited such planes and all interfere in so far
very
> scantily discovered ways. So arithmetic is a limited model, the reason for
> Goedel (even Turing, as you wrote).
> (Maybe I should use 'math'? it might stand in the broader way for human
> logic and I don't want to overextend what I say).
>
> Decision is also a model-based conclusion. Within the observed boundaries
of
> the restricet view. I would not be able to anticipate a conclusion which
the
> "infinite computer" may produce. BTW to call it (the infinite) a computer
is
> an oxymoron: unless we allow the functions in unlimited nature/fashion,
> which is not really
> 'computer-wise'. To call a qualitatively infinite result-churning system a
> 'computer' seems to me as a pars pro toto. (A reverse: totum pro parte is
> AI, which is indeed a contraption for the Artificial Machine
Intelligence -
> not a device for Artificial Human Intelligence
> as many regard it).
>
> Sorry for the long winded writing. I don't want to persuade anybody to
> accept my ideas, just wanted to add my tuppence.
>
> John Mikes
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
> To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:33 PM
> Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
>
>
> > Hi Eric:
> >
> > At 09:46 PM 11/15/2004, you wrote:
> > >On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 10:13, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> > > > To respond to comments on consistency.
> > > >
> > > > I see no reason why components of the system need to be internally
> > > > consistent. And I have indicated that the All is not internally
> > > > consistent. Generally speaking evolving Somethings are also not
> > > > consistent. Actually evolving Somethings are a sequence of
Somethings
> in
> > > > that each new "quantum" of information incorporated into a Something
> makes
> > > > it a new system.
> > > >
> > > > Arithmetic and any system that incorporates it can not prove its
> [their]
> > > > own consistency.
> > >
> > >Not to be able to prove its consistency doesn't mean
> > >it's inconsistent, does it?
> >
> > Going a little further Turing showed that there is in general no
decision
> > procedure. Godel's proof is a corollary of this. So if arithmetic
ever
> > became complete it would have to be inconsistent. The All contains all
> > arithmetics including the complete and inconsistent one. So the All is
> > internally inconsistent.
> >
> > Also if you did add an axiom to arithmetic how could this be done so it
> was
> > known to be consistent with the previous axioms?
> >
> >
> > >I'm thinking about an inconsistent system as one that
> > >can prove both a statement and its negation.
> >
> > That is right
> >
> > >What exactly do you mean by your All? All systems of
> > >representations, or All that 'exists'? If the latter,
> > >what does it mean 'to exist'? If the former, do these
> > >systems necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence
> > >to something that 'exists', and in what sense?
> >
> > As I said in an earlier post the information within the All may have a
> > separate "physical existence".
> > I left open for now what that might be. I do believe this to be in any
> way
> > essential as part of the description of "worlds". The All since it
> > contains all information sums to no net information. Concepts would be
> > packets of associated information. All this points to the first of the
> > above which is a position I have preferred for awhile.
> >
> >
> >
> > >I just can't grasp what you could possibly mean by an
> > >inconsistent All. And therefore I can't see what use
> > >this model could possibly have, and how can it possibly
> > >represent Anything. :)
> >
> > See above. If our world is indeed subject to true noise as I state in
my
> > model it would be a sequence of new systems - how does "prove" which is
a
> > step by step "process" within a given system have any relevance?
> >
> > Hal
> >
> >
>
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 17:54:43 PST