Re: Belief Statements

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:55:10 -0500

Hi John:

Sorry this took awhile - I have been very busy.

At 07:49 AM 1/31/2005, you wrote:
>Hi, Hal,
>I stepped out from this discussion a while ago, because it grew above my
>head (or attentional endurance), but I keep reading. Now is a remark of
>yours I want to ask about:
>
>">I defined information as the potential to establish a boundary.
>A kernel is the potential to establish a particular boundary.<"
>
>I don't work with the rigor and discipline you display, - I am no designing
>engineer, nor administrator of people doing such precision - I let my
>intuition tease me. So more than a decade ago I identified (my?)
>"information"
>as "acknowledged difference" whereby the difference was the criterion for
>the "existence". (Your ALL & Nothing don't exist in this sense, I am sorry
>for the kill.)
>"Acknowledged", of course by anything. Now I think a difference involves a
>boundary. Without such 'implied', no diference could be establihed. I feel a
>clsoeness here.
>Do you?

A bit. I do not know how to do a one for one on "acknowledged".

>Then the 2nd part: which invokes my more recent domain: wholeness (akin to
>Robert Rosen's complexity concept, the 'natural' one) where I consider
>"models" as the basis for our ways of thinking, since we cannot encompass
>the tota;lity in our little mind. Topical and other models, maps,
>territories, the sciences, ideas, etc. They are in intereffect, all of them,
>in diverse "depth"
>as Kampis identifies it (that part is what I am concerned about lately) and
>it gives some(!) natural basis for the topical/scientific model-selection.
>The models are surrounded by their boundaries and our reductionistic
>observation stops right there. Neglecting the 'beyond', which leads to
>paradoxes, poorly understood concepts, and all the misunderstanding we can
>explore in discussions like this one.
>I feel such chosen/selected models are akin to your kernels if they are not
>offended by it. Within boundaries that can occasionally be trasncended if
>one must.
>The difference is that I think (my) boundaries are selected.

I am not sure how to work with this. My All contains all potential
boundaries [kernels] including itself, the Nothing and the boundary between
them [the Everything]. This I reconciled in the "An All/Nothing multiverse
model" thread. At this level there can be no selection. However, the
dynamic internal to the All "selects" kernels to which it gives physical
reality for awhile.

>(Time is another open questionmark for me, I don't feel ready to address
>it).

"Time" is tough. I am struggling with it re my posted effort to understand
how choice in my (2) model can function and whether or not a SAS can be
explained by that functioning. I do not think an ideal clock which is - as
usually conceived - just a repeated loop of relative mechanical position
has anything to do with "time" which seems more some measure of non
repeated change. This is why I think that my oil canning boundaries within
a kernel having physical reality are "outside" "time".

>Did I miss some important aspect of yours?

I do not know. I am working on a post to bring all my recent posts together.

Hal Ruhl
Received on Mon Feb 07 2005 - 10:58:03 PST