Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:33:58 -0500

Hi George:

At 09:13 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
>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 ?

Such a photon has only part of the information required for the parsing of
red from other "color" responses of a particular large system. Further you
and I may both indicate red when colliding with such a photon but this is a
learned designation for who knows what different sensations [change] we our
respective large systems have. Not that I believe in observers or in the
isolation of systems.

>>> > 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.

I provided a justification - a simple basis for evolving universes - which
does not yet seem to have toppled.

Hal
Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 21:35:38 PST