Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 14:45:10 -0500

Dear Hal,

    About this "zero information" feature, could it be due to a strict
communitivity between any given "subset" of the All/Nothing? I ask this
because it seems to me that the "information content" of any string follows
from the existence of a difference between one ordering of the "bits" as
compared to another. Commutativity would erase (bad choice of wording) the
difference. In your theory, the distinction between what "it" *is* from what
"it" *is not", when we chain it out to tuples, is obviously a
non-commutativity property, at least.

Kindest regards,

Stephen


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model


> 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 - 14:44:26 PST