Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sat, 01 Jan 2005 18:36:33 -0500

The following version of my system description may aid reading it.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

Justification:

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 and 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.

Justification steps:

1) 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.

2) Given definitions [3], [4], and [5]:

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

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

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.

14) The All of course contains a kernel re the founding definition and thus
there is an infinitely nested potential to have All/Nothing pairs. This
completes the system in that the origin of the dynamic basically destroys
[Nothing, All] pairs but there is an infinite potential to form new
Nothings. The infinite nesting in this definition does not effect the zero
information of the All because kernels that are definitions [is, is not]
pairs can be balanced by an [is not, is] definitional pair kernel which
defines the same entities.

Hal
Received on Sat Jan 01 2005 - 18:38:42 PST