Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Georges Quenot <Georges.Quenot.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:58:31 +0100

Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall
> in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to
> erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual
> boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something.

This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example,
from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ?

> The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive.

I understand that one can have a view differing from mine
on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for
me, they are exclusive however.

> Perhaps the
> "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space
> that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not
> both.

This is intersting. I have exactly the opposite feeling.
In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and
therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or
coexist) if there is(*) nothing.

(*) "is" must be considered here in an intemporel mode and
not in the present one. Somehow like "equals" in "2 and 2
equals 4 "

Georges.
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 18:04:36 PST