----- Original Message ----- From: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:26 PM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> Hi, Hall, (to your post below and many preceding that): > > I feel there is a semantic game going on." ALL" we know of (or: can know > of), or ALL that 'exists' (another restriction) or ALL just undefined to > 'everything? In most minds the restrictions in thinking is considering this > (our) universe- world. Even expanded into thinking in terms of a Multiverse > sticks of similar universes. A BIG restriction. > "My" Multiverse consists of universes unlimited in number and qualia > (process capability, whatever). ALL in my mind is an invariant multitude of > processes (sorry, I am not on ontological "is" bases, rather in 'changes' > (whatever does change) resulting in the final infinite i.e. invariant > symmetry of total multitude. > I never used this 'ALL' term. > I used as a beginning the "nothingness" which, by identifying ITSELF as > such, became a "somethingness" as realizing the nothingness. What meant a > "difference" which I call: "existence". Acknowledged difference is the > "information" and here we are: a system. The details come in unlimitedly. > > Concepts: I cannot blame you for not 'believeing' in such things: they are > limited views of topically restricted 'parts' of the total (I call it > "wholeness") and such 'models' can be formulated as we wish. > > Arithmetic in my mind is ONE plane of the views: based on the quale of > quantizability. I still did not develop my idea of mathematics without > quantitative connotations, nobody showed the way to such understanding > (although I asked many plavces - many times). The qualia, however, of the > totality, consist of unlimited such planes and all interfere in so far very > scantily discovered ways. So arithmetic is a limited model, the reason for > Goedel (even Turing, as you wrote). > (Maybe I should use 'math'? it might stand in the broader way for human > logic and I don't want to overextend what I say). > > Decision is also a model-based conclusion. Within the observed boundaries of > the restricet view. I would not be able to anticipate a conclusion which the > "infinite computer" may produce. BTW to call it (the infinite) a computer is > an oxymoron: unless we allow the functions in unlimited nature/fashion, > which is not really > 'computer-wise'. To call a qualitatively infinite result-churning system a > 'computer' seems to me as a pars pro toto. (A reverse: totum pro parte is > AI, which is indeed a contraption for the Artificial Machine Intelligence - > not a device for Artificial Human Intelligence > as many regard it). > > Sorry for the long winded writing. I don't want to persuade anybody to > accept my ideas, just wanted to add my tuppence. > > John Mikes > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 10:33 PM > Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model > > > > Hi Eric: > > > > At 09:46 PM 11/15/2004, you wrote: > > >On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 10:13, Hal Ruhl wrote: > > > > To respond to comments on consistency. > > > > > > > > I see no reason why components of the system need to be internally > > > > consistent. And I have indicated that the All is not internally > > > > consistent. Generally speaking evolving Somethings are also not > > > > consistent. Actually evolving Somethings are a sequence of Somethings > in > > > > that each new "quantum" of information incorporated into a Something > makes > > > > it a new system. > > > > > > > > Arithmetic and any system that incorporates it can not prove its > [their] > > > > own consistency. > > > > > >Not to be able to prove its consistency doesn't mean > > >it's inconsistent, does it? > > > > Going a little further Turing showed that there is in general no decision > > procedure. Godel's proof is a corollary of this. So if arithmetic ever > > became complete it would have to be inconsistent. The All contains all > > arithmetics including the complete and inconsistent one. So the All is > > internally inconsistent. > > > > Also if you did add an axiom to arithmetic how could this be done so it > was > > known to be consistent with the previous axioms? > > > > > > >I'm thinking about an inconsistent system as one that > > >can prove both a statement and its negation. > > > > That is right > > > > >What exactly do you mean by your All? All systems of > > >representations, or All that 'exists'? If the latter, > > >what does it mean 'to exist'? If the former, do these > > >systems necessarily have a one-to-one correspondence > > >to something that 'exists', and in what sense? > > > > As I said in an earlier post the information within the All may have a > > separate "physical existence". > > I left open for now what that might be. I do believe this to be in any > way > > essential as part of the description of "worlds". The All since it > > contains all information sums to no net information. Concepts would be > > packets of associated information. All this points to the first of the > > above which is a position I have preferred for awhile. > > > > > > > > >I just can't grasp what you could possibly mean by an > > >inconsistent All. And therefore I can't see what use > > >this model could possibly have, and how can it possibly > > >represent Anything. :) > > > > See above. If our world is indeed subject to true noise as I state in my > > model it would be a sequence of new systems - how does "prove" which is a > > step by step "process" within a given system have any relevance? > > > > Hal > > > > >