Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: "Meaning" can not be assigned as an inherent component of the All. That would be a selection. "Meaning" can only be assigned if at all within the wave of "physical reality" associated with an evolving Something. Evolving Somethings will eventually encompass pairs of counterfactual and self counterfactual kernels of information thus making their future evolution which is an individual journey to completeness inconsistent with their past evolution. Thus the All is filled with inconsistent and non selected [random] activity. Its internal dynamic is random and inconsistent. Are these both not required for a global non selected activity? Random could still be consistent which would be a selection. 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. 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. Jesse
RE: Movie: WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW!?
Hi Folks, A bit tardy..catching up... An early cut debut of this film was played at the quantum mind conference in March 2003. I saw it Came away feeling like someone was lecturing me about a quantum mechanical religion/cult. I don't know how the official version was, but we were all asked to fill out questionaires... It may have altered the edit. It's supposed to get QM to the common folk, but it looked no different to any culty thing - very emotively and manipulative... Just another form of brand equity doing its dance. Merry xmas or whatever to all everythingers... :) colin > -Original Message- > From: Giu1i0 Pri5c0 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, 26 November 2004 12:34 AM > To: ExI chat list; World Transhumanist Association Discussion > List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Movie: WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE KNOW!? > > > Has anyone seen this movie? Looks interesting - > santatcruztoday.com: This sure-to-be cult favorite is a > hybrid of documentary and melodrama, combining a story about > an unhappy, divorced photographer (Marlee Matlin) wandering > the streets of Portland, Ore., with highly abstract > theoretical constructs about the nature of God and "the > wacky, weird world of quantum physics." The movie has a > website (http://www.whatthebleep.com/): WHAT THE BLEEP DO WE > KNOW?! is a new type of film. It is part documentary, part > story, and part elaborate and inspiring visual effects and > animations. The protagonist, Amanda, played by Marlee Matlin, > finds herself in a fantastic Alice in Wonderland experience > when her daily, uninspired life literally begins to unravel, > revealing the uncertain world of the quantum field hidden > behind what we consider to be our normal, waking reality... > The fourteen top scientists and mystics interviewed in > documentary style serve as a modern day Greek Chorus. In an > artful filmic dance, their ideas are woven together as a > tapestry of truth. The thoughts and words of one member of > the chorus blend into those of the next, adding further > emphasis to the film's underlying concept of the > interconnectedness of all things. http://www.whatthebleep.com/ > >
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi Jesse: "Meaning" can not be assigned as an inherent component of the All. That would be a selection. "Meaning" can only be assigned if at all within the wave of "physical reality" associated with an evolving Something. Evolving Somethings will eventually encompass pairs of counterfactual and self counterfactual kernels of information thus making their future evolution which is an individual journey to completeness inconsistent with their past evolution. Thus the All is filled with inconsistent and non selected [random] activity. Its internal dynamic is random and inconsistent. Are these both not required for a global non selected activity? Random could still be consistent which would be a selection. Hal At 09:10 PM 12/10/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: A kernel of information is the that information constituting a particular potential to divide. The All contains all such kernels. The All is internally inconsistent because it contains for example a complete axiomatized arithmetic as well as an infinity of other such kernels of information. So a set of all statements generated by an axiomatic system would qualify as a "kernel of information"? Even if you allow inconsistent axiomatic systems (as opposed to just consistent but incomplete ones), I still don't see why this makes the All inconsistent. After all, an axiomatic system is just a rule for generating strings of symbols which have no inherent meaning, such as "TBc3\". It is only when we make a mapping between the symbols and a *model* in our head (like 'in terms of my model of arithmetic, let T represent the number two, B represent addition, c represent the number three, 3 represent equality, and \ represent the number five') that we can judge whether any pair of symbol-strings is "inconsistent". Without such a mapping between symbols and models there can be no notion of "inconsistency", because two meaningless strings of symbols cannot possibly be inconsistent. And if we do assign symbol-strings a meaning in terms of a model, then if we find that two strings *are* inconsistent, that doesn't mean the symbols represent an inconsistent model, it just means that one of the statements must be *false* when applied to the model (for example, the symbol-string 7+1=9 is false when applied to our model of arithmetic). The model itself is always consistent. So unless you believe that inconsistent axiomatic systems represent true facts about inconsistent models, I don't think you can say the All must be inconsistent based on the fact that it contains rules which generate false statements about models as well as true ones. Jesse
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: A kernel of information is the that information constituting a particular potential to divide. The All contains all such kernels. The All is internally inconsistent because it contains for example a complete axiomatized arithmetic as well as an infinity of other such kernels of information. So a set of all statements generated by an axiomatic system would qualify as a "kernel of information"? Even if you allow inconsistent axiomatic systems (as opposed to just consistent but incomplete ones), I still don't see why this makes the All inconsistent. After all, an axiomatic system is just a rule for generating strings of symbols which have no inherent meaning, such as "TBc3\". It is only when we make a mapping between the symbols and a *model* in our head (like 'in terms of my model of arithmetic, let T represent the number two, B represent addition, c represent the number three, 3 represent equality, and \ represent the number five') that we can judge whether any pair of symbol-strings is "inconsistent". Without such a mapping between symbols and models there can be no notion of "inconsistency", because two meaningless strings of symbols cannot possibly be inconsistent. And if we do assign symbol-strings a meaning in terms of a model, then if we find that two strings *are* inconsistent, that doesn't mean the symbols represent an inconsistent model, it just means that one of the statements must be *false* when applied to the model (for example, the symbol-string 7+1=9 is false when applied to our model of arithmetic). The model itself is always consistent. So unless you believe that inconsistent axiomatic systems represent true facts about inconsistent models, I don't think you can say the All must be inconsistent based on the fact that it contains rules which generate false statements about models as well as true ones. Jesse
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
To continue: As I said attach no significance to the little thought pictures I am using to illustrate various aspects of my system. They illustrate little chunks and then break down. The system has no net information. The Nothing has no internal information. The Everything is the boundary of both erected by the unavoidable definition and has no further ability to divide so it has no information. Thus the All must have no net internal information. Neither the All nor the Nothing can stand alone because they are a definitional pair and their simultaneity allows the boundary [the definition also called the Everything] to have no net information other wise it would only contain one of the pair and thus have a residual potential to divide. A kernel of information is the that information constituting a particular potential to divide. The All contains all such kernels. The All is internally inconsistent because it contains for example a complete axiomatized arithmetic as well as an infinity of other such kernels of information. Further the system can not have a fixed structure because that is a possible selection [a potential to divide] and that is not allowed in the system so at this point drop most of the original "All as sphere" picture. It was meant to illustrate just a few aspects of the system. Now pick things up with the original post with the Nothing bring incomplete re having to resolve the meaningful question of its own persistence. Hal
