Re: Book preview: Theory of Nothing

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:38:28 -0400

Hi Russell:


At 07:20 PM 8/29/2005, you wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:18:22AM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
>
>Perhaps "completeness" <-> "consistency" under the duality
>operation. So a demonstration of nothing being incomplete is
>equivalent to a demonstration that the all is inconsistent.

So my definition idea then could hold the two together in a one step up
system which is just data devoid of meaning = no information?

Observer?:

But the system internally seems poised in a state of unstable equilibrium
since the Nothing must eventually address the question of its own
continuation - which is the origin of its incompleteness.

Thereby the equilibrium decays producing a randomly evolving Something [a
bounded but growing entity incorporating descriptions at random] in the All
[The All's inconsistency producing the randomness]. But at the level of
the Nothing and the All the system must reset itself so a new Nothing
emerges. The cycle repeats - another Something is initiated, etc. etc.

The incorporation process imparts an instantation of reality to the
description. The instantation of reality can randomly persist producing a
flow of awareness between descriptions.

A random process can produce long flows of awareness that look like ours.

The above seems like an adequate model of our universe but I do not see it
as observer driven at the level of the descriptions being incorporated [our
level].

I suppose that one could call the definition and the Somethings
descriptions that scan descriptions [making them observers?] but is either
conscious?



Hal Ruhl
Received on Tue Aug 30 2005 - 16:40:59 PDT