Re: Book preview: Theory of Nothing

From: Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:59:03 -0400

Hi John:

It would surprise me if it turns out somehow that a single description
[kernel] can have two fully contradictory properties from the list such as
fully square and fully round simultaneously assigned to the same object. I
do not currently allow that this is in any way "logical". However, I
would allow that a transitioning object may have aspects of roundness and
aspects of squareness simultaneously. Otherwise I am fairly liberal in
what I allow is "logical" for objects. I do not include "ideas" - such as
inconsistent mathematical systems - in this "exclusion".

Thus I would currently allow that all descriptions that do not contain
fully contradictory objects but can perhaps contain self contradictory
collections of ideas are in the All and thus eventually given instantations
of physical reality over and over.

As to the full list I suspect that to allow for inconsistent "ideas" such
as inconsistent mathematics that some of the items on the list [properties]
could themselves be self contradictory.

Yours

Hal Ruhl

At 04:00 PM 9/19/2005, you wrote:
>Hal:
>
>Do you have any suppositions how 'fragments' can be
>part of 'this' or rather 'that' description? Is there
>anything in 'everything' (pardon me the pun) which
>'makes' more likely for a (possible??? see below)
>component to belong to ensemble D vs. ensemble F? Are
>there attributes of the fragments (component? and how
>can they be found/defined? (I use 'information' in a
>different sense: as an 'absorbed' (acknowledged)
>difference - giving to the characteristic of a
>difference a way to (real) existence).
>
>Your 'theory' seems to round itself to more and more
>completion (I still call 'mine' a narrative) the only
>striking word lately (for me) was: "possible", meaning
>"in our view?" or "also exceeding the possibilities WE
>find so"? How can we include - in our terms -
>impossibles into the list of the possibles?
>
>I hope this is not more nitpicking than our overall
>struggle with words to express the inexpressible...
>
>John Mikes
Received on Mon Sep 19 2005 - 17:04:51 PDT