Re: My All Nothing model compacted, was: Re: Summary of seed ideas ...

From: John M <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:39:26 -0700 (PDT)

Hi, Hal and Bruno,

the "T" is my problem as well (I swalloed it) because
ALL (pardon the pun) we may know is within the feeble
capabilities of our little minds and I have no right
to assume that 'nature' does not include much more
than this little segment. This is why I call whatever
I find out in my speculations a "narrative".

Hal's language is "the music of the spheres" for me:
it is way above my head, and although I may 'feel' the
harmony in it, the simplistic (vocabulary) meaning of
the terms he is using - if I look them up - does not
give HIS topical 'substance' to my understanding;
besides, even such 'substance' would be weak,
considering my background.
One has to be comfortable with the meaning of the
words to follow the strange meanings of someone else'e
ideas.

Ten years ago Hal, you were much simpler in your
descriptions but then you started to chisle out
problems ie. include explanatory or modifying clauses
into the 'new' versions. Now I don't know if I agree
with it or not. (Don't misunderstand me: the 'not' is
not disagreement, only a lack of an enthusiastic
agreement.)

Regards

John M





--- Hal Ruhl <HalRuhl.domain.name.hidden> wrote:

> Hi Bruno:
>
> At 06:04 AM 9/23/2005, you wrote:
>
> >Le 22-sept.-05, à 18:12, John M a écrit :
>
> <John>
>
> >>Bruno:
> >>
> >>according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
> >>is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"?
>
> <Bruno>
>
> >The problem, for me, is with the "T" (both in TOE
> and TON).
> >I cannot judge. Hal's talk is still too much vague
> for me.
> >I appreciate and perhaps share some intuitions,
> though.I certainly
> >appreciate the role of logical incompleteness.
>
>
> Below I have tried to compact my model to see if it
> helps:
>
> There are three levels of existence in the model:
>
> 1) The list of all possible aspects of objects and
> ideas [and its
> representative one to one correspondence with the
> natural numbers].
>
> The next levels contain parsings of this list as
> objects or the
> descriptions of such parsings.
>
> 2) The [Nothing:All] parsing of the list. [As a pair
> of resulting objects
> and at this level due to the unavoidability of there
> being such objects.]
>
> 3) The descriptions of all the possible parsings of
> the list [kernels]
> [including level 2] all of which are placed in the
> All [along with the
> power set based representation as a one to one
> correspondence with the real
> numbers] and none of which are placed in the
> Nothing.
>
> The incompleteness of the Nothing produces a dynamic
> at levels 2 and 3.
>
> The inconsistency and content of the All and the
> imperative for level 2
> makes this dynamic random and perpetual.
>
> The resulting dynamic is a repeated
> extinction/establishment of Nothings
> and evolving Somethings in the All.
>
> The part of the this dynamic that is within the All
> [evolving Somethings]
> provides repeated instantations of physical reality
> to all the kernels in
> the All. [In a random fashion in keeping with the
> inconsistent nature of
> the All.]
>
> Some kernels are descriptions of states of universes
> so states of universes
> are given perpetual repetitions of instantations of
> physical reality in
> random sequences.
>
> The result is that all sequences of all states of
> all universes experience
> a flow of instantations of physical reality [over
> and over] some of which
> bridge states thus giving any Self Aware Structures
> described in these
> states a flow of awareness [consciousness].
>
> Hal Ruhl
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 23 2005 - 17:42:34 PDT