Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 17:48:31 -0500

Hi Jesse:

At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote:
>Hal Ruhl wrote:
>>
>>>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?
>
>No, because Godel proved that no axiomatic system can generate the set of
>all statements that would be true of our model of arithmetic (at least not
>without also generating false statements).

Except an infinite one.

>>> 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.
>
>Not really, usually when people try to convince others of new ideas they
>appeal to some common framework of beliefs or common understanding they
>already share--that's why people are capable of changing each other's mind
>through reasoned arguments, rather than everyone just making arguments
>like "if you grant that the Bible is the word of God, I can use passages
>from the Bible to show that it is indeed the word of God."

Well ideas of this nature then where the framework shifts.

>>>>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?
>
>I intentionally wrote the statement out in english words to convey the
>notion that I was making a meaningful statement about our model of
>arithmetic, rather than quoting a string of arbitrary symbols which can be
>mapped to the model in a certain way but don't have to be. There is no
>logically possible universe where the *idea* I am expressing in english
>when I say "one plus one equals two" is false, although of course we can
>imagine a universe where a non-english-speaker might use that particular
>string of letters to mean something different, like "my thorax is on fire"
>(as we would translate the meaning of his statement in english).

Again we deal with "logically possible" - see below.


>>>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".
>
>I disagree. "X AND Y -> X" does not imply that first you have "X AND Y"
>and then it somehow transforms into X at a later date, it just means "if
>it is true that statements X and Y are both true, then statement X must be
>true".

You miss my point. As I said in earlier posts the information is static,
the process of uncovering it is not. Try to stop thinking and reach a
decision or uncover a "truth". But what keeps thinking and deciding from
being local illusions.

>>> 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.
>
>No it wouldn't, because if you abandon the laws of logic you can say that
>it is also true that this system is not contradictory--in other words,
>although it's true that both these contradictory statements are true (so
>the 'system' containing both is contradictory), it's also true that one is
>true and one is false (so the system containing both is not
>contradictory). Of course, you can now say the meta-system containing both
>the statements I just made is contradictory, but I can apply the exact
>same anti-logic to show this meta-system is not contradictory. And you can
>also use anti-logic to show that every statement I have made in this
>paragraph about the implications of anti-logic is false, including this
>one. Once you abandon the principle that if a statement is true, its
>negation must be false and vice-versa, then anything goes.

And why is "anything goes" a problem? Anything goes includes universes
such as ours.

Hal
Received on Sun Dec 12 2004 - 17:50:40 PST