Carlos,
Hi. I'm not sure if I completely understand, but what I'd say in
response is that:
o What I call a complete definition of what is present, which is
equivalent to a boundary or edge defining what is contained within, I
think could also be called information in that the complete definition
tells what is contained within and thus provides information.
o I prefer to not just say "information" without defining what is
meant by that. Physicists do this all the time, but what exactly is
information? To me, it doesn't matter what you call the fundamental
unit of existence (information, mathematical constructs, matter,
fundamental particles, etc.), it still exists, and the key is finding
out why it exists instead of not existing. I think by saying that a
thing exists if what is contained within or meant by that thing is
completely defined is at least a mechanism or reason for why things
exist. Then, once knowing why the fundamental thing exists, I'd agree
with you in saying that this complete definition is equivalent to
information.
o I agree completely that the universe is composed of one fundamental
kind of existent state (or particle). If physicists and philosophers
really want a unified theory of the universe, this is about as unified
as you can get. What I'm suggesting is that this fundamental existent
state is equivalent to what we've traditionally, and incorrectly,
thought of as the complete lack-of-all, or non-existence, because this
complete lack-of-all, in and of itself, completely describes the
entirety of what is there and is thus a complete definition or an
existent state. Whether or not its called the complete lack-of-all
or absence-of-information, I think the reason we've always incorrectly
thought of it as an absence of something is because we're forced to
think of it within our minds, which exist and which have information.
Next to our minds, it just looks like a complete absence. But, this
complete lack-of-all/absence-of information, and not our mind's
conception of it, doesn't face this constraint. The complete absence
is independent of our mind's conception of it, and, in and of itself,
completely describes the entirety of what is there and is thus really
an existent state. Whether you call this existent state information
or something else doesn't matter; it's the fundamental unit of
existence. Overall, this sounds very similar to what you're saying
that "the absence of information is some kind of information".
So, sorry for such a long-winded reply, and I think I pretty much
agree with you. What you call information, I prefer to call a
complete definition because it kind of describes more of a mechanism/
reason for what it means.
Thanks!
Roger
On Aug 20, 3:15 pm, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Roger
>
> In case that boundary gives substance and existence, would you agree
> that information matches as a concept that boundary definition.
> And if so, would you agree that that boundary contacts both the inner
> and outer components of this model.
> And if so, would you also agree that the outer hand of that boundary
> somehow is related to the non existent part (non existent to the inner
> object).
> If we could imagine an universe made of just one particle, the outer
> space of that universe being non existent should have at least an
> attribute, not having the only particle, would you agree that that
> only attribute is enough to completely define the only particle within
> its counterpart universe.
> In other words, could be that the absence of information is some kind
> of information. And if so would you agree that that kind is the only
> information possible.
>
> I would of course. To me information is the absent part of the
> equation
>
> Thank you too
>
> Carlos
>
> On Aug 19, 3:32 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Carlos,
>
> > Hi. Thanks for the comment and for reading my posting! The idea
> > that the complete definition of something is a boundary or edge that
> > gives substance and existence to a thing seems to make sense to me.
> > Also, it sounds similar to stuff physicists are talking about now such
> > as string theory (strings seem like boundaries) and that we may be
> > holographic projections from a membrane (ie, boundary). Thanks again!
>
> > Roger
>
> > On Aug 18, 9:09 am, einseele <einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I found your post very interesting!
>
> > > A philosophical engineering is possible yes I'm sure.
> > > In other words, to develop certain objects, right through pure
> > > speculation, which are able to interact in a third position which is
> > > not purely scientific or philosophic. (if I got correctly the
> > > expression)
>
> > > Called my attention what you called here the "boundary" which "gives"
> > > substance.
>
> > > best
>
> > > Carlos
>
> > > On Aug 18, 2:26 am, Roger <roger...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > If anyone is interested, I put some of my ideas on why things
> > > > exist, why is there something rather than nothing, and infinite sets
> > > > at the following website:
>
> > > >https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite/
>
> > > > The abstract of the "Why do things exist and why is there
> > > > something rather than nothing?" paper is also below. Thank you!
>
> > > > Roger
>
> > > > Why Do Things Exist and Why is There Something Rather than Nothing?
>
> > > > Abstract
>
> > > > In this paper, I propose solutions to the questions "Why do things
> > > > exist?" and "Why is there something rather than nothing?" In regard
> > > > to the first question, "Why do things exist?", it is argued that a
> > > > thing exists if the contents of, or what is meant by, that thing are
> > > > completely defined. A complete definition is equivalent to an edge or
> > > > boundary defining what is contained within and giving “substance” and
> > > > existence to the thing. In regard to the second question, "Why is
> > > > there something rather than nothing?", "nothing", or non-existence, is
> > > > first defined to mean: no energy, matter, volume, space, time,
> > > > thoughts, concepts, mathematical truths, etc.; and no minds to think
> > > > about this lack-of-all. It is then shown that this non-existence
> > > > itself, not our mind's conception of non-existence, is the complete
> > > > description, or definition, of what is present. That is, no energy,
> > > > no matter, no volume, no space, no time, no thoughts, etc., in and of
> > > > itself, describes, defines, or tells you, exactly what is present.
> > > > Therefore, as a complete definition of what is present, "nothing", or
> > > > non-existence, is actually an existent state. So, what has
> > > > traditionally been thought of as "nothing", or non-existence, is, when
> > > > seen from a different perspective, an existent state or "something".
> > > > Said yet another way, non-existence can appear as either "nothing" or
> > > > "something" depending on the perspective of the observer. Another
> > > > argument is also presented that reaches this same conclusion.
> > > > Finally, this reasoning is used to form a primitive model of the
> > > > universe via what I refer to as "philosophical engineering".
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
