Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 14:29:43 -0500

Dear Hal,
here are some stupid remarks (I call them stupid, because - they really
are - I cannot follow the theoretical logic of your discussion with Bruno,
and base my remarks on "feeling" while reading your text - which is not the
most "scientific" way of dicussion. Nevertheless I submit them FYI: I quote
and reply below.----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model


 (Hal: > Bruno >> JM: blank lines)
> Hi Bruno:
>........
>
> In the following call an individual [Ai,Dj] pair logic system Ln where
"i",
> "j", and "n" can go from 1 to an uncountable infinity and all possible
> [Ai,D,j] pairings are considered.
What if i or j are '0'? do you take it out from 'all possible,' if the
"pair" is
a "single logic item?
(That would be no valid description of Worlds? restrictions on 'valid'?)
In Nothing both are '0', (I suppose). Is this an exception from your model?
BTW All and Nothing cannot have a model in the usual sense. (Common sense,
that is). I call a 'model' an informational (topical, etc.) restricted view.
Such possibility would violate the impossibility of 0 = 1 (- in the
consistency).
> ........
>
> I see no reason to exclude the Ln which have such an Ai from being a valid
> description of a World. It is just an explicit expression of
> incompleteness rather than an implicit one. Thus there could be two
> subsets of Ai in W.
I deny the argument "I see no reason to exclude..." (Nescio non est
argumentum).
Such as: "this is the only way it can be..." is appealing to ignorance of
the other ways.
>.........
> Thus induction would fail for all worlds in W because the logical
> foundation for all worlds would be constantly shifting from one Ln to
> another.
>
> >Concerning many theories, to say that a proposition
> >(or a set of propositions) A is logically possible
> >is the same as saying that A is consistent (i.e you
> >cannot derive 0 = 1 from it),
No matter what, the unlimited Multiverse cannot be based on a possibility
WITHIN "A N Y "
of the logical systems derivable in our mind. Our descriptive talent can
have limits but not the
W. Even the 0=1 impossibility postulate is human logic, see above my Latin
phrase.
>
> When talking of descriptions of worlds - in such a venue consistency would
> only be applicable to individual states [if at all] and not to successions
> of states. The question then is can the All [which contains W] contain
> self inconsistent states such as one with a correctly and completely
> assembled two wheeled tricycle or a cat that is both alive and dead or the
> same thing having two valid sets of coordinates? Now the All is complete
> so it is internally inconsistent so I see no way to argue against the
> presence of such states founded on inconsistent Ai.

That sounds better, (including the i=0 above case as well?)
>
> > or saying that A has a
> >model (a reality, a mathematical structure) satisfying it.
Human logic again. Is A modeled with the unmodelable ALL or Nothing?
>
> It seems that the idea that mathematical structures are actually
consistent
> is nice but lacks any basis.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> To help place my model in context with the above:
>
> A core idea is the definitional pair relationship. The [All,Nothing] pair
> is unique in being inherently unavoidable but still summing to no
> information. Thus it has no initiation and no end.
Amen
>
> Another core idea is: Is there a meaningful question the Nothing must
> resolve? The answer to this is: Yes there is: The Nothing either
> continues [persists], or it does not. The answer must be inherent in the
> information within the Nothing but there is none in there by
> definition. Therefore the Nothing is incomplete - it can not resolve any
> meaningful question. But in this case it must do so. The only reservoir
> of information is the All. Therefore it must breach the barrier between
> itself and the All. In doing so it losses contact with what it was [an Ln
> shift] and becomes an evolving [including successive Ln shifts] - a
> multiverse - within the All.
And so on...The 'partners of yours (All & Nothing) get a task, MUST DO, and
W H Y ?
Who gave your idea the power to force them do anything? if they leave YOUR
questions
unresolved, so what? Are you sure that your supposition is in order for
THEM? Your
superior-like treatment is like a boss's order upon his ideas. I see an
aberration from the
(objective) description style here. I would forget about the imperative.
>
> Since the [All,Nothing] is as above an
> unavoidable definitional pair a "new" Nothing simultaneously replaces the
> old one. The cycle repeats. The cycle always was and always will be and
> the All contains an infinite number of these Somethings all evolving
> towards completeness.
Whatever can be modeled is incomplete. Maximum model = ALL, which is NO
model.
Completeness as I read it is defined according to your inventory. If you go
for ifinite completeness,
you are out of your system (model?). Maybe our covabularies are different.
In that case: I am sorry.
> This produces waves of "physical reality" passing
> through a random sequence of states [including Ln shifts as per
> above]. The Somethings evolve because of their own incompleteness and
the
> need for no selection no net information within the All. The evolution
> must be random because of no selection and the All is internally
> inconsistent since it is complete.
Here I feel inconsistency of the formulation: if you speak about "evolution"
it is negating All. Argument:
exactly as you wrote it. I was careful to separate even descriptions of All
(Plenitude in my word) and the
"universe" - result of it as an invomplete World, separating the "view" in
one from the "view" in the other.
It may be naive, but I did not identify time and other parameters in my ALL,
while the other view(s)
follow "physical" considerations (I call it: meterial reality). Not
interchangeable or composable.
>
> Hal
>
John

PS Please, if you find errors in my 'feelings', just point them out, if you
wish. I will not be capable of arguing so I will accept them at face value.
These remarks of mine are - as said - 'feelings', not topical argumentation.
J
Received on Fri Dec 03 2004 - 17:56:18 PST