Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal, You state, "Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by other than the belief of the majority of mathematicians." That's an interesting observation, and it shows that much of what we take as "proven," from math to religion, is something that we accept as true because authorities have said it's true. It's certainly true that if a majority of mathematicians (or TOE theorists) claim that something that I don't understand is proven, then I'll accept it as proven UNLESS the "proof" is inconsistent. By inconsistent I mean that if a set of formulae can be used to prove a contradiction, they are inconsistent. I suppose that definition is the same as Bruno's. Is that what you mean by inconsistent? In any case, just because fifty million Frenchmen, mathematicians, TOE theorists, or True Believers of one sort or another, say that something is true, doesn't make it true. And I don't believe that anything can be both true and inconsistent. Norman - Original Message - From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 2:14 PM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model Hi Norman: I suppose a person would hope that a theory they propose is in some way global but I was talking about the idea that "belief" is a factor in mathematical as well as other discourse. Bruno said in an earlier post in this thread: "A proposition P is logically possible, relatively to 1) a consistent set of beliefs A 2) the choice of a deduction system D (and then consistent means "does not derive 0=1)." Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by other than the belief of the majority of mathematicians. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: You wrote: Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of "evolving Somethings", not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems. Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected "meaning". That is why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently. OK, since I don't really understand your system I should have said something more general, like "you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own theoretical framework, not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems". So, again, you don't have any way of showing to a person who doesn't share your theoretical framework in the first place that "everything", i.e. the All, need be inconsistent. I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did that info come from? I don't consider that to be "information" because it seems logically impossible that a statement such as "one plus one equals two" could be false. You might as well ask, "where do the laws of logic come from"? Do you consider the laws of logic to be "information"? If you don't think the laws of logic can be taken for granted, you could just solve the information problem by saying it is simultaneously true that there is "something rather than nothing" and also "nothing rather than something", even though these facts are contradictory. If you grant that the "laws" of logic and mathematics contain no information because there is no possible world in which they could be otherwise, then you could always adopt a theory like Tegmark's which just says that the "everything" consists of all possible mathematical structures, although you might still have a problem with picking a measure on these structures if you want a notion of probability (to solve things like the 'white rabbit problem'), and if there is any element of choice in picking the measure that would be form of arbitrariness or "information" (see my post at http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m2606.html ). Jesse
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi Norman: I suppose a person would hope that a theory they propose is in some way global but I was talking about the idea that "belief" is a factor in mathematical as well as other discourse. Bruno said in an earlier post in this thread: "A proposition P is logically possible, relatively to 1) a consistent set of beliefs A 2) the choice of a deduction system D (and then consistent means "does not derive 0=1)." Most mathematical proofs are too complex to be judged by other than the belief of the majority of mathematicians. Hal At 03:44 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote: Hal, With reference to your "inconsistent" TOE model (which I do not claim to understand), you state "My approach solves these issues for ME . . ." You also state "All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware" and "free will" etc. at least for ME. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak." (My capitalizations.) Are you implying that your model is NOT "universal"? Are you saying that "reality" is subjective? Norman - Original Message - From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 11:56 AM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model Hi Jesse You wrote: >>>Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea >>>that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of "evolving >>>Somethings", not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems. Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected "meaning". That is why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently. >>>But in this case, someone who doesn't believe (or understand) your own >>>theory in the first place need not agree that there's any reason to >>>think a theory of everything would involve "everything" being >>>inconsistent. I do not believe in TOE's that assume structures such as just an Everything thus yielding a theory with that assumption as irreducible information. After all where did that come from? I do not believe in TOE's that assume a dynamic such as computers simulating universes without a justification for a dynamic. I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did that info come from? If you select a particular meaning out of its spectrum of possible meanings and assign it to a system is that not even more information in any such TOE? My approach solves these issues for me and has only few small prices to pay: Computer simulations or other dynamics will suffer random input. But so what? For example a CA that tends to an attractor can be stabilized in a reasonably self similar behavior off the attractor with the right amount of random input. Such an input to a universe is a decent explanation for an accelerating expansion of that universe given a max info storage and a fixed or increasing susceptibility to such input per unit volume. One could not do a statistical extract of information [there is none] say re why we find ourselves in this particular kind of universe. But again so what? Why would that be a believable expectation of a TOE in the first place? All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware" and "free will" etc. at least for me. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal, With reference to your "inconsistent" TOE model (which I do not claim to understand), you state "My approach solves these issues for ME . . ." You also state "All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware" and "free will" etc. at least for ME. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak." (My capitalizations.) Are you implying that your model is NOT "universal"? Are you saying that "reality" is subjective? Norman - Original Message - From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 11:56 AM Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model Hi Jesse You wrote: >>>Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea >>>that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of "evolving >>>Somethings", not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems. Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected "meaning". That is why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently. >>>But in this case, someone who doesn't believe (or understand) your own >>>theory in the first place need not agree that there's any reason to >>>think a theory of everything would involve "everything" being >>>inconsistent. I do not believe in TOE's that assume structures such as just an Everything thus yielding a theory with that assumption as irreducible information. After all where did that come from? I do not believe in TOE's that assume a dynamic such as computers simulating universes without a justification for a dynamic. I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did that info come from? If you select a particular meaning out of its spectrum of possible meanings and assign it to a system is that not even more information in any such TOE? My approach solves these issues for me and has only few small prices to pay: Computer simulations or other dynamics will suffer random input. But so what? For example a CA that tends to an attractor can be stabilized in a reasonably self similar behavior off the attractor with the right amount of random input. Such an input to a universe is a decent explanation for an accelerating expansion of that universe given a max info storage and a fixed or increasing susceptibility to such input per unit volume. One could not do a statistical extract of information [there is none] say re why we find ourselves in this particular kind of universe. But again so what? Why would that be a believable expectation of a TOE in the first place? All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware" and "free will" etc. at least for me. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi Jesse You wrote: Well, what I get from your answer is that you're justifying the idea that the All is inconsistent in terms of your own concept of "evolving Somethings", not in terms of inconsistent axiomatic systems. Just the reverse. The evolving Somethings inevitably encompass the inconsistencies within the All [all those inconsistent systems [self or pairwise] each with their full spectrum of unselected "meaning". That is why the Somethings evolve randomly and inconsistently. But in this case, someone who doesn't believe (or understand) your own theory in the first place need not agree that there's any reason to think a theory of everything would involve "everything" being inconsistent. I do not believe in TOE's that assume structures such as just an Everything thus yielding a theory with that assumption as irreducible information. After all where did that come from? I do not believe in TOE's that assume a dynamic such as computers simulating universes without a justification for a dynamic. I do not believe in TOE's that start with the natural numbers - where did that info come from? If you select a particular meaning out of its spectrum of possible meanings and assign it to a system is that not even more information in any such TOE? My approach solves these issues for me and has only few small prices to pay: Computer simulations or other dynamics will suffer random input. But so what? For example a CA that tends to an attractor can be stabilized in a reasonably self similar behavior off the attractor with the right amount of random input. Such an input to a universe is a decent explanation for an accelerating expansion of that universe given a max info storage and a fixed or increasing susceptibility to such input per unit volume. One could not do a statistical extract of information [there is none] say re why we find ourselves in this particular kind of universe. But again so what? Why would that be a believable expectation of a TOE in the first place? All universes over and over is in my belief system more satisfying and may be able to put some handle on ideas such as "self aware" and "free will" etc. at least for me. As to the individual beliefs, understandings, or needs of others I can not speak. Hal
