Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 19:37:40 -0500

Hi John:

At 06:12 PM 12/26/2004, you wrote:
>Dear Hal,
>is there some draft seeable on the web?

Not yet. If the idea still looks good at the end of this thread I intend
to post something on my web page with visual aids etc.

> I thought I am comfortable with your
>terminology (whether I understand it or not) but now I wonder:
>Is Everything part of All, or All part of Everything? Then again it should
>be that Nothing is part of Everything, maybe not necessarily of All. You
>cannot say that "everything except the nothing", but nothing cannot be part
>of All: it is per definitionem the entirety of somethings.

I called the boundary between the Nothing and the All the Everything
because it being the only boundary of both it contains them both. The All
of course contains a kernel re the founding definition and thus there is an
infinitely nested potential to have All/Nothing pairs.

>To the exchange with Stephen:
>(My) no-info Plenitude is so, because it contains the 'everything' in a
>timeless, dynamic(!!) total symmetry (=invariance of unlimited exchange), so
>no observables can be extracted in that atemporality. Then again THIS is
>information, so it is not true that it has none. I have a feeling that your
>"no-info" suffers from he same malaise. Unless you separate the information
>of the description from the info about the inner components only.

The description of the All is one side of the definitional [is, is not]
pair. The description of the Nothing is the other side. The simultaneous
existence of both the All and the Nothing eliminates any residual potential
to establish a boundary [information] that might have been inherent in the
definition.

Hal
Received on Sun Dec 26 2004 - 19:39:15 PST