Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 22:27:01 -0500

Hi Jesse:

"Meaning" can not be assigned as an inherent component of the All. That
would be a selection. "Meaning" can only be assigned if at all within the
wave of "physical reality" associated with an evolving Something. Evolving
Somethings will eventually encompass pairs of counterfactual and self
counterfactual kernels of information thus making their future evolution
which is an individual journey to completeness inconsistent with their past
evolution. Thus the All is filled with inconsistent and non selected
[random] activity. Its internal dynamic is random and inconsistent. Are
these both not required for a global non selected activity? Random could
still be consistent which would be a selection.

Hal


At 09:10 PM 12/10/2004, you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
>>A kernel of information is the that information constituting a particular
>>potential to divide.
>>
>>The All contains all such kernels.
>>
>>The All is internally inconsistent because it contains for example a
>>complete axiomatized arithmetic as well as an infinity of other such
>>kernels of information.
>
>So a set of all statements generated by an axiomatic system would qualify
>as a "kernel of information"? Even if you allow inconsistent axiomatic
>systems (as opposed to just consistent but incomplete ones), I still don't
>see why this makes the All inconsistent. After all, an axiomatic system is
>just a rule for generating strings of symbols which have no inherent
>meaning, such as "TBc3\". It is only when we make a mapping between the
>symbols and a *model* in our head (like 'in terms of my model of
>arithmetic, let T represent the number two, B represent addition, c
>represent the number three, 3 represent equality, and \ represent the
>number five') that we can judge whether any pair of symbol-strings is
>"inconsistent". Without such a mapping between symbols and models there
>can be no notion of "inconsistency", because two meaningless strings of
>symbols cannot possibly be inconsistent. And if we do assign
>symbol-strings a meaning in terms of a model, then if we find that two
>strings *are* inconsistent, that doesn't mean the symbols represent an
>inconsistent model, it just means that one of the statements must be
>*false* when applied to the model (for example, the symbol-string 7+1=9 is
>false when applied to our model of arithmetic). The model itself is always
>consistent. So unless you believe that inconsistent axiomatic systems
>represent true facts about inconsistent models, I don't think you can say
>the All must be inconsistent based on the fact that it contains rules
>which generate false statements about models as well as true ones.
>
>Jesse
>
Received on Fri Dec 10 2004 - 22:28:50 PST