Who believe in Concepts ? (Was: An All/Nothing multiverse model)
Hal Ruhl wrote: 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: [see original post] I have already a problem here. It might not be specific to this proposal but this is a good opportunity to raise the question. Defintion 1 and everything that follows depends in a strong way of the concept of concept and on strong properties of that concept (like the possibilty to discrimate what is a concept from what is not and to gather all concepts in a set/ensemble/collection with a consistent meaning). Though we make such assumptions everyday and it work perfectly well in practice for most current affairs, it is far from obvious (at least for me) that it follows that things are really so (just think of the concept of dog in an evolutionary and/or universe-wide perspective for instance). Personnally, I do not believe in Concepts (the upper case denotes here a solid sense for the concept of concept, for instance, a sense strong enough to make correct assumptions such as: concepts cae be isolated concepts can be discriminaed from things that aren't concepts and/or one from another, concepts actually get (or not) at things in the real worlds and, last but not least, concepts can be arranged in utterances that says true or false things about the real world). This has quite frustrating consequences, including the one of not being able to apropriately comment your proposal and, more generallly, to consistently take part in many interesting discussions. I find puzzling that many people, especially among those that are not very religious and/or those that shares many of my views, believes in Concepts. Or do they ? Or up to what ? This is why I would like to ask participants of the TOE group what they believ or not about Concepts as well as about their handling in natural language reasonning. I am also interested in opinions about the impact of this in discussions in the TOE group. Indeed, many questions seem relative to the senses that should/could be given to sepcific concepts (existence, reality, physical, universes, ...). Examples (positive or nengative) would certainly help. Thanks, Georges. Let's assume nothingness exists. Therefore something (nothingness) exists. Therefore nothingness doesn't exist. Therefore nothingness doesn't exist. That's why there's something rather than noting.
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: 4) A Something: A division of the All into two subparts. That too, sounds bad to me. It might well be that the only something that deserve the title of Something would be the All itself. Everything else might appear so only in our minds (and/or in other types of minds). Georges.
Re: Who believe in Concepts ? (Was: An All/Nothing multiverse model)
At 07:56 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: 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: [see original post] I have already a problem here. It might not be specific to this proposal but this is a good opportunity to raise the question. Defintion 1 and everything that follows depends in a strong way of the concept of concept and on strong properties of that concept (like the possibilty to discrimate what is a concept from what is not and to gather all concepts in a set/ensemble/collection with a consistent meaning). Perhaps I could find a more neutral word or define what I mean by concept. Please note however that the complete ensemble can not be consistent - after all it contains a completed arithmetic. Generally smaller sets can not prove their own consistency. snip Let's assume nothingness exists. Therefore something (nothingness) exists. That is one of my points if one replaces your nothingness with my nothing and your something with my All. Any definition defines two entities simultaneously. Generally but not necessarily the smaller of the two entities is the one about which the definition says: This entity is:. The definition creates a boundary between this entity and a second entity which is all that the first is not. Most of the second entities may have no apparent usefulness but usefulness of an entity is not relevant. Therefore nothingness doesn't exist. Not at all. One can not define a something without simultaneously defining a nothing and vice versa. That is the usually unnoticed aspect of the definitional process. This leads you to the exclusionary statement below. That's why there's something rather than noting. To the contrary both exist if either does. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi Georges: At 08:16 AM 11/14/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: 4) A Something: A division of the All into two subparts. That too, sounds bad to me. It might well be that the only something that deserve the title of Something would be the All itself. Everything else might appear so only in our minds (and/or in other types of minds). Georges. I believe my use of the term Something in the text of the justification is consistent with my definition. One must allow for the case that the All could have internal boundaries of some sort. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
I am not quite sure how justification (5) is meant to hang on this structure. Where does the idea of asking questions come from? Why is the Nothing supposed to be the kind of thing that should asked questions in the first place? Why is the fact that Nothing can't answer a question any more important from the fact that, e.g., a rock can't answer a question? Do you mean something like: if you want to know some fact about the Nothing, you can't examine the Nothing to find your answer, since it's not there? I also don't understand why the Nothing should be the kind of thing that penetrates boundaries, attempts to complete itself, etc. It seems that your Nothing gets up to quite a lot of action considering that it's Nothing. Are these actions metaphors for something else, and if so, what? On Nov 13, 2004, at 6:03 PM, Hal Ruhl wrote: 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
Hi Pete: At 04:50 PM 11/14/2004, you wrote: I am not quite sure how justification (5) is meant to hang on this structure. Where does the idea of asking questions come from? Why is the Nothing supposed to be the kind of thing that should asked questions in the first place? Why is the fact that Nothing can't answer a question any more important from the fact that, e.g., a rock can't answer a question? It is the same idea as Godel's approach to showing the incompleteness of arithmetic. The structure of arithmetic was asked a question [the truth or falseness of a grammatically valid statement] it could not answer [resolve]. The Nothing can not escape being asked if it is stable or not and has no ability to resolve the question. Do you mean something like: if you want to know some fact about the Nothing, you can't examine the Nothing to find your answer, since it's not there? Yes but the you is unnecessary. I also don't understand why the Nothing should be the kind of thing that penetrates boundaries, attempts to complete itself, etc. It seems that your Nothing gets up to quite a lot of action considering that it's Nothing. Are these actions metaphors for something else, and if so, what? The Nothing can not escape answering the stability question so it must try to add structure [information] to itself until it has an answer. The only source of this structure is the ALL . Thus the Everything boundary must be breached. Since the Nothing is however, essential, it is renewed, refreshed, reestablished, resurrected - however you want to look at it the Nothing can not vanish from the system. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
The Nothing in my system is no longer a Nothing once it breaches the Everything boundary so it can thereafter be active. It is immediately replaced by a new Nothing. The language we are using does not allow me to discuss these ideas without introducing a hint of a thing called time which I do not wish to do. Hal
