Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:14:42 -0500

Hi Norman:

I suppose a person would hope that a theory they propose is in some way
global but I was talking about the idea that "belief" is a factor in
mathematical as well as other discourse.

Bruno said in an earlier post in this thread:

"A proposition P is logically possible, relatively to
1) a consistent set of beliefs A
2) the choice of a deduction system D (and then consistent
     means "does not derive 0=1)."

Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by other than the
belief of the majority of mathematicians.

Hal


At 03:44 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>Hal,
> With reference to your "inconsistent" TOE model (which I do not claim to
>understand), you state "My approach solves these issues for ME . . ." You
>also state "All universes over and over is in my belief system more
>satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware"
>and "free will" etc. at least for ME. As to the individual beliefs,
>understandings, or needs of others I can not speak." (My capitalizations.)
> Are you implying that your model is NOT "universal"? Are you saying
>that "reality" is subjective?
>Norman
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
>To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
>Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 11:56 AM
>Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
>
>
>Hi Jesse
>
>You wrote:
>
> >>>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.
>
>Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the
>inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or
>pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected "meaning". That is
>why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently.
>
> >>>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.
>
>I do not believe in TOE's that assume structures such as just an Everything
>thus yielding a theory with that assumption as irreducible
>information. After all where did that come from?
>
>I do not believe in TOE's that assume a dynamic such as computers
>simulating universes without a justification for a dynamic.
>
>I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did
>that info come from?
>
>If you select a particular meaning out of its spectrum of possible meanings
>and assign it to a system is that not even more information in any such TOE?
>
>My approach solves these issues for me and has only few small prices to pay:
>
>Computer simulations or other dynamics will suffer random input. But so
>what? For example a CA that tends to an attractor can be stabilized in a
>reasonably self similar behavior off the attractor with the right amount of
>random input. Such an input to a universe is a decent explanation for an
>accelerating expansion of that universe given a max info storage and a
>fixed or increasing susceptibility to such input per unit volume.
>
>One could not do a statistical extract of information [there is none] say
>re why we find ourselves in this particular kind of universe. But again so
>what? Why would that be a believable expectation of a TOE in the first
>place? All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying
>and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware" and "free
>will" etc. at least for me.
>
>As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not
>speak.
>
>Hal
Received on Sat Dec 11 2004 - 17:17:31 PST