Re: subjective reality

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:34:22 -0400

Hi Godfrey:

My model starts with what I describe as unavoidable definition - of the All
and [simultaneously] the Nothing.

Any definition defines a pair of two objects. The target object such as a
flower [the "is" part of the pair] and an object that has the remainder of
the list of all properties etc. of all possible objects [the "is not" part
of the pair]. Generally the "is not" part of the pair is of little
use. The All and the Nothing are an interesting "is", "is not"
definitional pair. The All is the entire list and the Nothing is the
absence of the entire list.

The Nothing is inherently incomplete and this results in the dynamic.

This is a brief semi intro and I have posted on this model before as it has
developed.

Now the All part contains all possible states of all possible
universes. This should include the one I believe represents
ours. Therefore my All seems to contain universes that support YD and thus
comp if Bruno is correct.

To answer your questions as best I currently can:

My model appears to contain YD, CT, and AR so if Bruno's follow on
reasoning is correct and if in fact my model contains YD, CT, and AR then
it contains comp but it is not the same as comp - it would embed comp.

Is my model falsifiable? I will have to think about that - after all I
just recently got to where it supports a flow of consciousness. Since the
model does not say exactly what is on the list that is the All and the
'instantation of reality" dynamic is random then what indeed is the scope
of "all possible states of all possible universes" and the resulting
actually implemented evolving universes?

In any event it would be interesting to see if YD can be shown to be
false. I think that might start to constrain the All and that would be
interesting - [why that constraint and what others are there?].

Hal

At 10:44 AM 8/19/2005, you wrote:
>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)
Received on Fri Aug 19 2005 - 16:36:21 PDT