Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 23:50:56 -0500

Hal Ruhl wrote:

>"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.

Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea that
the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of "evolving
Somethings", not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems. But in this
case, someone who doesn't believe (or understand) your own theory in the
first place need not agree that there's any reason to think a theory of
everything would involve "everything" being inconsistent.

Jesse
Received on Fri Dec 10 2004 - 23:54:04 PST