Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:41:37 -0500

At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
>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 ?

Color is a complex and local system reaction to the collision between a
small system - a photon to temporarily stay with a "particle" view - and a
larger system - a photo receptor etc. The information in the photon [its
energy] and the information in the chemistry of the photo receptor
determine the initial path of this response in a given large system and
create a boundary between this initiation and the initiation that would
have been if the information differed. [By the way I do not support this
description of such systems but that is another discussion.]

> > 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.

As I said my approach to "physics" differs from the standard one re space
and time etc. My use of these words is convenience only but my point is
why should existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence
of an All and a Nothing. This would be an arbitrary truncation without
reasonable justification.

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

See above.

Hal
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 20:46:09 PST