At 07:28 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
>
>>
>>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.
>
>OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said
>something more general, like "you're justifying the idea that the All is
>inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms of
>inconsistent axiomatic systems".
Do you grant that the All which contains all information contains a
completed axiomatized arithmetic?
> So, again, you don't have any way of showing to a person who doesn't
> share your theoretical framework in the first place that "everything",
> i.e. the All, need be inconsistent.
I expect that this is a common problem for anyone's ideas.
>>I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did
>>that info come from?
>
>I don't consider that to be "information" because it seems logically
>impossible that a statement such as "one plus one equals two" could be false.
Why? Is there no universe [state] wherein the transitory meaning assigned
to these symbols makes the sentence false?
>You might as well ask, "where do the laws of logic come from"? Do you
>consider the laws of logic to be "information"?
The "Laws of Logic" [at least as we have assembled them in our little
corner of our multiverse] establish a process designed to discover the
information compressed into a system. A process takes place in a dimension
we call "time". Thus "time" is a hidden assumption in the "Laws of
Logic". This assumption is suspect. What is the justification for this
ordered sequence called "time"? So the "Laws of Logic" are not only just
a locally grown way of finding preexisting potential to divide
[information] and not such a potential themselves but they are also highly
suspect. What is the justification for imposing them on all the other
universes and multiverses?
> If you don't think the laws of logic can be taken for granted, you could
> just solve the information problem by saying it is simultaneously true
> that there is "something rather than nothing" and also "nothing rather
> than something", even though these facts are contradictory.
There would still be the information contained in the existence of the
contradiction which divides it from systems that are not contradictory.
>If you grant that the "laws" of logic and mathematics contain no
>information because there is no possible world in which they could be
>otherwise, then you could always adopt a theory like Tegmark's which just
>says that the "everything" consists of all possible mathematical
>structures, although you might still have a problem with picking a measure
>on these structures if you want a notion of probability (to solve things
>like the 'white rabbit problem'), and if there is any element of choice in
>picking the measure that would be form of arbitrariness or "information"
>(see my post at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2606.html ).
See above re the "Laws of Logic".
Hal
Received on Sun Dec 12 2004 - 10:16:41 PST