Hi George:
At 09:13 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Hal Ruhl wrote: >At 05:58 PM 11/16/2004, you wrote:
Color is a complex and local system reaction to the collision between a small system - a photon to temporarily stay with a "particle" view - and a larger system - a photo receptor etc. The information in the photon [its energy] and the information in the chemistry of the photo receptor determine the initial path of this response in a given large system and create a boundary between this initiation and the initiation that would have been if the information differed. [By the way I do not support this description of such systems but that is another discussion.]Hal Ruhl wrote:
Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something.
This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example, from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ?
Do you mean that it is a nonsense to say that a monochromatic radiation of 700 nm is red if it does not actually hit and activate some photoreceptors of the appropriate type ?
Such a photon has only part of the information required for the parsing of red from other "color" responses of a particular large system. Further you and I may both indicate red when colliding with such a photon but this is a learned designation for who knows what different sensations [change] we our respective large systems have. Not that I believe in observers or in the isolation of systems.
> The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive.
I understand that one can have a view differing from mine on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for me, they are exclusive however. > Perhaps the > "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space > that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not > both.
This is interesting. I have exactly the opposite feeling. In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or coexist) if there is(*) nothing.
As I said my approach to "physics" differs from the standard one re space and time etc.
I meant here something similar to the "standard" space and time as considered in physics and "common sense". I could consider other possible senses but I currently can't figure any.
My use of these words is convenience only but my point is why should existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence of an All and a Nothing.
The "prohibition" does not "come from" an anemia of existence (as you suggest) but rather from the strength of nothing(ness), at least in my view of things.
This would be an arbitrary truncation without reasonable justification.
Just as the opposite.
I provided a justification - a simple basis for evolving universes - which does not yet seem to have toppled.
Hal
