Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 22:25:17 -0500

Hi Jesse:

At 09:23 PM 12/7/2004, you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl 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.
>
>I am not asking about how "Somethings" evolve in your theory, I'm asking
>what's your justification for claiming that the All is inconsistent.

You are giving examples of machines simulating worlds. That is not how my
approach works. Thus my response. For the other see below.


>>>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?
>
>You don't need Turing's results to show that,

Its one of many ways of showing that the All contains kernels of
information that are inconsistent with each other. The kernels are always
there. No computers are running in my All it only may look that way here
and there from time to time.

>it is quite trivial to construct an axiomatic system with two
>contradictory axioms, or with different subsets of axioms that can be used
>to prove inconsistent theorems.



>However, there is a distinction between saying an axiomatic system is
>inconsistent, and saying there is something inconsistent in the behavior
>of the Turing machine simulating that system. There will always be a
>single definite truth about what symbol the Turing machine prints out at
>what time--it is only when you try to interpret the *meaning* of different
>strings of symbols that it prints out that you will see an inconsistency.
>As an analogy, suppose I am running a complex simulation of a human being
>sitting at a writing desk, and he writes two sentences on a simulated
>piece of paper: "I have a beard" and "I do not have a beard". If we
>interpret these sentences in terms of their english meaning, obviously
>they represent inconsistent statements, but that doesn't mean the
>simulation itself is somehow "inconsistent", does it? One of the
>statements will be true and one will be false, so there's no problem.

Get rid of the machine.


>Your argument would only show the All to be inconsistent if you believe
>that for every axiomatic system a Turing machine can simulate, there must
>be a corresponding "world" within the All where all the axioms and
>theorems represent simultaneously true statements about that world. But if
>you believe that, then you are saying the All must contain not only all
>possible worlds, but logically impossible worlds as well. Is that what
>you're saying?

All states of all worlds are logically within the venue and visited with
"physical reality" over and over.


>>>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.
>
>I don't understand what these words are supposed to mean, or how they
>address my question above. Can you just answer "yes" or "no"?

Again get rid of the machine. The dynamic is not a simulation generating
states in any way.

Hal
Received on Tue Dec 07 2004 - 22:36:42 PST