Re: subjective reality

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:44:38 -0400

Hi Hal,

  From what you say below I am not able to determine whether your model
is identical or
  distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am interested in so let
me ask you:

  Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you still "dance" if
that is the case?

  I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out to be a lot less
interesting than
 falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand....

 Best regards,

 Godfrey Kurtz
 (New Brunswick, NJ)

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
 To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
 Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0400
 Subject: Re: subjective reality

  With regard to YD I have proposed in other posts that our universe
consists of a set of discrete points that are when in their neutral
locations arranged on a face centered cubic grid. Each point is
confined to a region of discrete locations that surround its neutral
location in the grid. I like this grid because its symmetries appear to
allow a set of first order oscillations of the points within their
regions in a unit cell consisting of 12 points around one with all
triples being on straight lines that pass through the central point to
represent the basic particles of the Standard Model. I call such
oscillations a [small] dance. A [small] dance can move through the grid
but individual points can not. Larger dances (such as a SAS) consist of
semi "stable" associations of nearby [small] dances.

  The entire grid [universe] changes state when a point in a region
asynchronously polls its 12 neighbors and assumes a new location in its
region based on the results. It is a type of Cellular Automaton [CA].

  At this level TD seems straight forward since there is no change at
all.

  The approach is compatible with CT since some CA are capable of
universal computation and the universe it models can contain SAS [the
"done effectively" part] since large dances can be self interactive.

  The other things that are in my model which is derived from my "is"
"is not" definitional approach is that the imbedding system:

  1) Is one in which all possible states of all universes preexist
[multi world and the model's link to AR],

  2) Is randomly dynamic in terms of which states have instantations of
reality [noise in the flow of reality] (a nice explanation of the
accelerating expansion of our universe [additional points as part of
the noise] recently observed),

  3) In the dynamic, adjacent states can have instantations of reality
that overlap [the flow of consciousness].

 In the end then I must say that it seems my model contains comp.

  I indicated to Bruno some time ago that I thought we were to some
degree convergent.

 Hal Ruhl


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Fri Aug 19 2005 - 10:46:25 PDT