Re: Book preview: Theory of Nothing

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:18:22 -0400

Hi Russell:


At 03:02 AM 8/29/2005, you wrote:
> > I am of the opinion that the Everything and the Nothing carry tags [say
> > "full" and "empty" respectfully] which distinguish them. This is left
> over
> > information in what I hoped was an information free system. This is why I
> > eventually came up with the idea that definition produces two
> > objects. This makes the Everything and the Nothing each other's tag.
>
>I'm not of this opinion. I argue that the Everything and the Nothing
>are essentially the same thing considered in different
>ways. Nevertheless, it could be we're saying the same things using
>different words. The term I use is mathematical duality.

I have argued that the Nothing is incomplete [its "mate" - I call it the
All - may be inconsistent due to its completeness] and the collection -
Nothing + All + the definition - I call the Everything]. If the Nothing
is incomplete and the All is not is this a violation of mathematical duality?

Hal Ruhl
Received on Mon Aug 29 2005 - 10:20:18 PDT