Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 13:23:31 -0500

Below is a background for my model and a rewrite of the original post.

My concerns with a TOE which I am trying to resolve are:

I would like to see the theory have a zero information content.

I would like an origin for what we perceive as a changing reality - a dynamic.

Postulating the existence of entities like an "Everything" or a "Plenitude"
etc. seemed to me to leave residual information in the system because the
definitional structure surrounding these concepts was like a label with an
unfulfilled potential to distinguish another entity not in the system i.e.
a "Nothing".

This eventually lead to the idea that definition was actually a boundary
separating what a thing being defined is from what it is not and the "is
not" is another thing. So definition simultaneously defines two entities -
an [is, is not] pair.

Another Idea I posted on awhile back was that a dynamic could be based on
the incompleteness of the Nothing. It could resolve no meaningful
questions about itself. Was there such a question? I proposed that it
must resolve the question of its own stability - will it
persist. Eventually the Nothing would have to spontaneously become
something to try to resolve this question and this something would then
evolve as it tried to complete itself and become an "Everything".

However if the "Everything" and the "Nothing" were a defintional [is, is
not] pair which seemed reasonable what would give existence preference to
one over the other and simultaneously put the system in a state of unused
potential to divide i.e. contain information.

The existence of at least one of the pair seemed assured so could the
system work if both existed simultaneously?

This eventually resulted in my post which is revised below.

Definitions:

1) Information: Information is the potential to establish a boundary.

2) Kernel of information: The information required for the potential to
establish a specific boundary.

3) The All: The complete kernel ensemble.

4) The Nothing: That which is empty of all kernels.

5) The Everything: The boundary which contains the All and separates it
from the Nothing. Thus it also contains the Nothing.

6) A Something: A division [by a boundary] of the All into two subparts.

7) True noise: An inconsistency of the evolution of a Something reflected
in the course of physical reality given to universes within it.

Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are
the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.

Justification:

1) Given definitions 3, 4, and 5:

2) These definitions are interdependent because you can not have one
without the whole set.

3) Notice that "Defining" is the same as establishing a boundary between
what a thing is and what it is not. This defines a second thing: the is
not. A thing can not be defined in isolation.

4) These definitions are unavoidable because at least one of the [All,
Nothing] pair must exist. Since they form an [is, is not] pair they
bootstrap each other into existence.

5) The Nothing has a logical problem: since it is empty of kernels it can
not answer any meaningful question about itself including the unavoidable
one of its own stability [persistence].

6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point
"penetrate" the boundary between itself and the All [the only place
information resides] in an attempt to complete itself. This could be
viewed as a spontaneous symmetry breaking.

7) However, the boundary is permanent as required by the definitions and a
Nothing must remain.

8) Thus the "penetration" process repeats in an always was and always will
be manner.

9) The boundary "penetration" produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves
into the All as the old example of Nothing becomes a Something and tries to
complete itself. This divides the All into two evolving Somethings -
evolving multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are "contracting" -
losing kernels.

10) Notice that the All also has a logical problem. Looking at the same
meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible answers
because just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal information
which is not an aspect of a complete kernel ensemble. Thus the All is
internally inconsistent.

11) Therefore the motion of a shock wave boundary in the All must be echo
this inconsistency. That is each step in the motion as it encompasses
kernel after kernel [the evolution of a Something] can not be completely
dependent on any past motion.

12) Some kernels are states of universes and when the boundary of an
evolving Something passes about a kernel, the kernel can have a moment of
physical reality.

13) From within any Something the future course of reality would be non
deterministic i.e. suffer True Noise.


Hal
Received on Sun Dec 26 2004 - 13:25:28 PST