An All/Nothing multiverse model

2004-11-13 Thread Hal Ruhl
I would appreciate comments on the following.
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are 
the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.

Justification:
1) Given definitions 1, 2, and 3:
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 concept it can 
not answer any meaningful question about itself including the unavoidable 
one of its own stability.

6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point 
penetrate the boundary between itself and the All 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 remains.

8) Thus the penetration process repeats in an always was and always will 
be manner.

8) The boundary penetration produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves 
into the All as the old example of Nothing tries to complete itself.  This 
divides the All into two evolving Somethings - evolving 
multiverses.  Notice that half the multiverses are contracting - loosing 
concepts.

9) 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 the complete conceptual ensemble content of the 
All.   Thus the All is internally inconsistent.

10) Thus the motion of a shock wave boundary in the All must be consistent 
with this inconsistency - That is the motion is at least partly random.

11) Some of these evolving Somethings - multiverses will admit being 
modeled as a computer computation but with true noise - definition 5.

Definitions:
1) The All: The complete conceptual ensemble (including the concept of 
itself).  Some concepts and collections of concepts may or may not have a 
separate physical reality.

2) The Nothing: That which is empty of all concepts.
3) The Everything: That which contains the All and separates it from the 
Nothing.  Thus it also contains the Nothing.

4 A Something: A division of the All into two subparts.
5) True noise: The random content of the evolution of the Somethings 
introduces random information into each component of a multiverse from a 
source external to that component.

Hal



RE: An All/Nothing multiverse model

2004-11-13 Thread Hal Ruhl
Sorry, I placed the definitions at the end of my post for easy group 
reference and forgot to mention it.

Hal



RE: An All/Nothing multiverse model

2004-11-13 Thread Hal Ruhl
[The whole post]:
I would appreciate comments on the following.
I placed the definitions at the end for easy group reference.
Proposal: The Existence of our and other universes and their dynamics are 
the result of unavoidable definition and logical incompleteness.

Justification:
1) Given definitions 1, 2, and 3:
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 concept it can 
not answer any meaningful question about itself including the unavoidable 
one of its own stability.

6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point 
penetrate the boundary between itself and the All 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 remains.

8) Thus the penetration process repeats in an always was and always will 
be manner.

8) The boundary penetration produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves 
into the All as the old example of Nothing tries to complete itself.  This 
divides the All into two evolving Somethings - evolving 
multiverses.  Notice that half the multiverses are contracting - loosing 
concepts.

9) 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 the complete conceptual ensemble content of the 
All.   Thus the All is internally inconsistent.

10) Thus the motion of a shock wave boundary in the All must be consistent 
with this inconsistency - That is the motion is at least partly random.

11) Some of these evolving Somethings - multiverses will admit being 
modeled as a computer computation but with true noise - definition 5.

Definitions:
1) The All: The complete conceptual ensemble (including the concept of 
itself).  Some concepts and collections of concepts may or may not have a 
separate physical reality.

2) The Nothing: That which is empty of all concepts.
3) The Everything: That which contains the All and separates it from the 
Nothing.  Thus it also contains the Nothing.

4) A Something: A division of the All into two subparts.
5) True noise: The random content of the evolution of the Somethings 
introduces random information into each component of a multiverse from a 
source external to that component.

Hal