Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Georges Quenot <Georges.Quenot.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 03:13:36 +0100

Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
> 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.]

Do you mean that it is a nonsense to say that a monochromatic
radiation of 700 nm is red if it does not actually hit and
activate some photoreceptors of the appropriate type ?

>> > 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 interesting. 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.

I meant here something similar to the "standard" space and time
as considered in physics and "common sense". I could consider
other possible senses but I currently can't figure any.

> 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.

The "prohibition" does not "come from" an anemia of existence
(as you suggest) but rather from the strength of nothing(ness),
at least in my view of things.

> This would be an
> arbitrary truncation without reasonable justification.

Just as the opposite.

Georges.
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 21:18:18 PST