> -----Original Message----- > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > This is a simple and short effort to present my current > ideas. To aid > communication it is not intended to follow an established means of > mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I > hope it reads ok.
Please let me know if I've misunderstood... > 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information." That's a good starting point. It implies a sort of information symmetry in which every bits of information is cancelled out somewhere else. > 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information: > > Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest > must receive the response "yes". I don't understand this bit at all, sorry! > 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more > component(s), > i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an > ensemble of all > possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information. > > 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with > respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the > system again > violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible. Why is no neutralisation possible for a stable "Nothing" ? Can't it be balanced by another stable "Something" (or "Nothing", perhaps) ? > 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest > ensemble of all > possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are > violations of the > postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing". > > 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the > "Nothing" and the > other component(s). > > 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other > component" which is > either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of > "Somethings" > is a selection representing additional information > which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information > present in the "Nothing". > > 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate: > > a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly > selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble. > > b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble > must be random > or the selection process is additional information in > violation of the > postulate. > > c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual > "Somethings" so > there can be no endless loops of repeats which would > represent additional > information and are forbidden by the postulate. > > ------------------- > > Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some > portion of each > successive "Something". > > Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the > emptiness or gap > between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution. > > Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of > isomorphism > succession find no home in this model because the gap for > such universes > would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing" > "Something" > alternation. > > The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It > contains no > information and it can not contain enduring fully > deterministic universes. This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you have time could you post something which is more understandable to the layman? Charles
