Re: subjective reality

From: <kurtleegod.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 13:09:08 -0400

Hi Hal,

 I am sorry I have not responded to you previously and I
 thank you for the further clarifications your provide
 about your theory. Sounds quite extraordinary but
 unfortunately I don't feel I grasp it well enough
 to make any useful comment as to its contents.

 From what you say before it seems that you claim that
 you derive YD, CT and AR from it which happen to be
 Bruno's points of departure! Is that the case? Does
 your All include false statements too?

 I am asking this out of curiosity not because I see any
 obvious way of addressing the falsification of your model.
 I don't want to sound like a big stickler for Popper or
 anything but I am sure you are familiar with the infamous
 libel often directed at String Theory that "it is not even false!"

 It is always easy to marvel at a construction in the sky
 when we don't see the strings (pass the pun) that hold
 it up...

 Best regards,


 Godfrey Kurtz
 (New Brunswick, NJ)

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
 To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
 Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:34:22 -0400
 Subject: Re: subjective reality

 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)



________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
Received on Mon Aug 22 2005 - 13:31:21 PDT