I wouldn't say a lower level, its more of an alternative route to the
same point. I get there fairly directly from the observation that the
Plenitude of all descriptions has zero information (according to all
observers), so is in effect the simplest possible object. I also note
the duality relation that maps the Plenitude to Nothing, hence my
title "Theory of Nothing".
Constrasting this with your model, you note an inherent contradiction
in the Nothing not being able to state its own completeness, hence
immediately necessitating the existence of the "All", which in turn is
inconsistent. Your claim is that this leads to a "dynamic" between
Nothing and All.
Don't get me wrong, I think your idea has the germ of a very
interesting idea, the problem is I have never really understood what
your "dynamic" is supposed to be in a timeless world. Nor have I seen
anyone else on the list grok your ideas and express them in other
words. This is not a criticism, but does make it hard for me to
include in an integrated fashion in my book.
I have resolved to include a mention of your ideas in my book,
although I don't find it an easy task to express your ideas in a way
that intergrates with the rest of the book. Do you have a write up
that I can reference - ie a journal ref, arXiv, DOI or even permanent
URL?
(I am reluctant to refer to URLs, as these are less permanent than
others, but in some cases necessary).
Cheers
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:33:27PM -0400, Hal Ruhl wrote:
> Hi Russell:
>
> In my previous post on this thread I was looking for your commentary re a
> comparison between your "In this book, I propose a Plenitude of all
> descriptions, containing at least one that *is* a conscious observer" [page
> 53] and my All and its Somethings.
>
> If we allow that a Something can be conscious by virtue of its containing
> kernels having SAS and that the All = your Plenitude have I in my model
> derived your proposal from a lower level?
>
> For reference I just posted the latest revision of my model.
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 R.Standish.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Sat Sep 17 2005 - 21:53:12 PDT