Dear Hal,
About this "zero information" feature, could it be due to a strict communitivity between any given "subset" of the All/Nothing? I ask this because it seems to me that the "information content" of any string follows from the existence of a difference between one ordering of the "bits" as compared to another. Commutativity would erase (bad choice of wording) the difference. In your theory, the distinction between what "it" *is* from what "it" *is not", when we chain it out to tuples, is obviously a non-commutativity property, at least.
Kindest regards,
Stephen
----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <everything-list@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Below is a background for my model and a rewrite of the original post.
My concerns with a TOE which I am trying to resolve are:
I would like to see the theory have a zero information content.
I would like an origin for what we perceive as a changing reality - a dynamic.
Postulating the existence of entities like an "Everything" or a "Plenitude" etc. seemed to me to leave residual information in the system because the definitional structure surrounding these concepts was like a label with an unfulfilled potential to distinguish another entity not in the system i.e. a "Nothing".
This eventually lead to the idea that definition was actually a boundary separating what a thing being defined is from what it is not and the "is not" is another thing. So definition simultaneously defines two entities - an [is, is not] pair.
Another Idea I posted on awhile back was that a dynamic could be based on the incompleteness of the Nothing. It could resolve no meaningful questions about itself. Was there such a question? I proposed that it must resolve the question of its own stability - will it persist. Eventually the Nothing would have to spontaneously become something to try to resolve this question and this something would then evolve as it tried to complete itself and become an "Everything".
However if the "Everything" and the "Nothing" were a defintional [is, is not] pair which seemed reasonable what would give existence preference to one over the other and simultaneously put the system in a state of unused potential to divide i.e. contain information.
The existence of at least one of the pair seemed assured so could the system work if both existed simultaneously?
This eventually resulted in my post which is revised below.
Definitions:
1) Information: Information is the potential to establish a boundary.
2) Kernel of information: The information required for the potential to establish a specific boundary.
3) The All: The complete kernel ensemble.
4) The Nothing: That which is empty of all kernels.
5) The Everything: The boundary which contains the All and separates it from the Nothing. Thus it also contains the Nothing.
6) A Something: A division [by a boundary] of the All into two subparts.
7) True noise: An inconsistency of the evolution of a Something reflected in the course of physical reality given to universes within it.
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.
Justification:
1) Given definitions 3, 4, and 5:
2) These definitions are interdependent because you can not have one without the whole set.
3) Notice that "Defining" is the same as establishing a boundary between what a thing is and what it is not. This defines a second thing: the is not. A thing can not be defined in isolation.
4) These definitions are unavoidable because at least one of the [All, Nothing] pair must exist. Since they form an [is, is not] pair they bootstrap each other into existence.
5) The Nothing has a logical problem: since it is empty of kernels it can not answer any meaningful question about itself including the unavoidable one of its own stability [persistence].
6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point "penetrate" the boundary between itself and the All [the only place information resides] in an attempt to complete itself. This could be viewed as a spontaneous symmetry breaking.
7) However, the boundary is permanent as required by the definitions and a Nothing must remain.
8) Thus the "penetration" process repeats in an always was and always will be manner.
9) The boundary "penetration" produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves into the All as the old example of Nothing becomes a Something and tries to complete itself. This divides the All into two evolving Somethings - evolving multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are "contracting" - losing kernels.
10) Notice that the All also has a logical problem. Looking at the same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible answers because just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal information which is not an aspect of a complete kernel ensemble. Thus the All is internally inconsistent.
11) Therefore the motion of a shock wave boundary in the All must be echo this inconsistency. That is each step in the motion as it encompasses kernel after kernel [the evolution of a Something] can not be completely dependent on any past motion.
12) Some kernels are states of universes and when the boundary of an evolving Something passes about a kernel, the kernel can have a moment of physical reality.
13) From within any Something the future course of reality would be non deterministic i.e. suffer True Noise.
Hal
