Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:03:44 -0500

At 06:37 PM 12/7/2004, you wrote:

>>To clarify - the All contains all information simultaneously [see the
>>definition in the original post] - including ALL Truing machines with ALL
>>possible output tapes - so it contains simultaneously both output tapes
>>re your comment below.
>
>But if there is a fact which is true in one "world" being simulated by a
>given Turing machine, but false in a different Turing machine simulation,
>that doesn't mean that "the All" is contradictory. After all, the
>statement "this planet contains life" is true of Earth but not true of
>Pluto, but that doesn't mean the solar system is contradictory, it just
>means that different facts are true of different planets.

This really misses my meaning. That is not how Somethings evolve in the
All. The Somethings incorporate preexisting information such as states of
universes in a random dynamic.

>Similarly, if the All contains all "possible worlds" in some sense (all
>possible Turing machine programs, for example), then different facts could
>be true of different worlds, without this meaning the All itself is
>inconsistent. If Turing machine program #2334 simulates a 3-dimensional
>universe while Turing machine program #716482 simulates a 2-dimensional
>universe, that doesn't mean the inconsistent statements "the universe is
>3-dimensional" and "the universe is 2-dimensional" are simultaneously true
>in the All--rather, it just means the statements "the universe described
>by program #2334 is 3-dimensional" and "the universe described by program
>#716482 is 2-dimensional" are simultaneously true in the All, and there is
>no contradiction between these statements.

See above.


>As long as you always describe the *context* of any statement, I don't see
>any reason why we should describe the All as inconsistent. So if you think
>the All is inconsistent somehow, you need to explain in more detail why
>you think this is.

I already have. Would you agree that Turing's result says that some subset
of FAS are inconsistent?

>Also, you didn't answer my earlier question about whether your idea of the
>All only includes worlds that could be simulated on a Turing machine, or
>if it also includes worlds that could be simulated by a "hypercomputer"
>which is capable of performing uncomputable operations (like instantly
>deciding if a given Turing machine program will halt or not).

The All is all information without restriction. All the information is in
there all the time. The boundaries of the Somethings wash across the
inherent counterfactuals counterfactually.

Hal
Received on Tue Dec 07 2004 - 22:06:54 PST