Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
At 07:28 PM 12/11/2004, you wrote: 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. Do you grant that the All which contains all information contains a completed axiomatized arithmetic? 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 expect that this is a common problem for anyone's ideas. 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. Why? Is there no universe [state] wherein the transitory meaning assigned to these symbols makes the sentence false? You might as well ask, where do the laws of logic come from? Do you consider the laws of logic to be information? The Laws of Logic [at least as we have assembled them in our little corner of our multiverse] establish a process designed to discover the information compressed into a system. A process takes place in a dimension we call time. Thus time is a hidden assumption in the Laws of Logic. This assumption is suspect. What is the justification for this ordered sequence called time? So the Laws of Logic are not only just a locally grown way of finding preexisting potential to divide [information] and not such a potential themselves but they are also highly suspect. What is the justification for imposing them on all the other universes and multiverses? 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. There would still be the information contained in the existence of the contradiction which divides it from systems that are not 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 ). See above re the Laws of Logic. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi Jesse: At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: 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. Do you grant that the All which contains all information contains a completed axiomatized arithmetic? No, because Godel proved that no axiomatic system can generate the set of all statements that would be true of our model of arithmetic (at least not without also generating false statements). Except an infinite one. 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 expect that this is a common problem for anyone's ideas. Not really, usually when people try to convince others of new ideas they appeal to some common framework of beliefs or common understanding they already share--that's why people are capable of changing each other's mind through reasoned arguments, rather than everyone just making arguments like if you grant that the Bible is the word of God, I can use passages from the Bible to show that it is indeed the word of God. Well ideas of this nature then where the framework shifts. 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. Why? Is there no universe [state] wherein the transitory meaning assigned to these symbols makes the sentence false? I intentionally wrote the statement out in english words to convey the notion that I was making a meaningful statement about our model of arithmetic, rather than quoting a string of arbitrary symbols which can be mapped to the model in a certain way but don't have to be. There is no logically possible universe where the *idea* I am expressing in english when I say one plus one equals two is false, although of course we can imagine a universe where a non-english-speaker might use that particular string of letters to mean something different, like my thorax is on fire (as we would translate the meaning of his statement in english). Again we deal with logically possible - see below. You might as well ask, where do the laws of logic come from? Do you consider the laws of logic to be information? The Laws of Logic [at least as we have assembled them in our little corner of our multiverse] establish a process designed to discover the information compressed into a system. A process takes place in a dimension we call time. Thus time is a hidden assumption in the Laws of Logic. I disagree. X AND Y - X does not imply that first you have X AND Y and then it somehow transforms into X at a later date, it just means if it is true that statements X and Y are both true, then statement X must be true. You miss my point. As I said in earlier posts the information is static, the process of uncovering it is not. Try to stop thinking and reach a decision or uncover a truth. But what keeps thinking and deciding from being local illusions. 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. There would still be the information contained in the existence of the contradiction which divides it from systems that are not contradictory. No it wouldn't, because if you abandon the laws of logic you can say that it is also true that this system is not contradictory--in other words, although it's true that both these contradictory statements are true (so the 'system' containing both is contradictory), it's also true that one is true and one is false (so the system containing both is not contradictory). Of course, you can now say the meta-system containing both the statements I just made is contradictory, but I can apply the exact same anti-logic to show this meta-system is not contradictory. And you can also use anti-logic to show that every statement I have made in this paragraph about the implications of anti-logic is false, including this one. Once you abandon the principle that if a statement is true, its negation must be false and vice-versa, then anything goes. And why is anything goes a problem? Anything goes includes universes such as ours. Hal
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hi Jesse: At 09:35 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl: Hi Jesse: At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: 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. Do you grant that the All which contains all information contains a completed axiomatized arithmetic? No, because Godel proved that no axiomatic system can generate the set of all statements that would be true of our model of arithmetic (at least not without also generating false statements). Except an infinite one. Godel's theorem would also apply to infinite axiomatic systems whose axioms are recursively enumerable (computable). But sure, if you allow non-computable axiomatic systems, you could have one that was both complete and consistent. A complete axiomatized arithmetic would be I believe be inconsistent as supported by to Bruno' post. http://www.escribe.com/science/theory/m5812.html 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 expect that this is a common problem for anyone's ideas. Not really, usually when people try to convince others of new ideas they appeal to some common framework of beliefs or common understanding they already share--that's why people are capable of changing each other's mind through reasoned arguments, rather than everyone just making arguments like if you grant that the Bible is the word of God, I can use passages from the Bible to show that it is indeed the word of God. Well ideas of this nature then where the framework shifts. Since I don't understand your ideas I can't really comment. But I can't think of any historical examples of new mathematical/scientific/philosophical ideas that require you to already believe their premises in order to justify these premises. But you do not understand my ideas so how does this apply? You might as well ask, where do the laws of logic come from? Do you consider the laws of logic to be information? The Laws of Logic [at least as we have assembled them in our little corner of our multiverse] establish a process designed to discover the information compressed into a system. A process takes place in a dimension we call time. Thus time is a hidden assumption in the Laws of Logic. I disagree. X AND Y - X does not imply that first you have X AND Y and then it somehow transforms into X at a later date, it just means if it is true that statements X and Y are both true, then statement X must be true. You miss my point. As I said in earlier posts the information is static, the process of uncovering it is not. So why couldn't the static ideas expressed by the laws of logic be timelessly true, even if we can only see the relationships between these truths in a sequential way? You still miss what I am saying. The laws of logic are designed to discover preexisting information. The preexisting information is static. Discovery is a time dependent process. It assumes time exists. Why that? How is it justified? Try to stop thinking and reach a decision or uncover a truth. But what keeps thinking and deciding from being local illusions. I don't know, the justification of beliefs is a part of the field of epistemology, and I don't have any good theory of epistemology. But I generally trust my thought-processes nevertheless. I trust mine as well, but on reflection I can not verify that my thought-processes even take place. 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. There would still be the information contained in the existence of the contradiction which divides it from systems that are not contradictory. No it wouldn't, because if you abandon the laws of logic you can say that it is also true that this system is not contradictory--in other words, although it's true that both these contradictory statements are true (so the 'system' containing both is contradictory), it's also true that one is true and one is false (so the system containing both is not contradictory). Of course, you can now say the meta-system containing both the statements I just made is contradictory, but I can apply the exact same anti-logic to show this meta-system is not contradictory. And you can also use anti-logic to show that every statement I have made in this paragraph about the implications of anti-logic is false, including this one. Once you abandon the principle that if a statement is true, its negation must be false and vice-versa, then anything goes. And why is anything goes a problem? Anything
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl wrote: 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. Do you grant that the All which contains all information contains a completed axiomatized arithmetic? No, because Godel proved that no axiomatic system can generate the set of all statements that would be true of our model of arithmetic (at least not without also generating false statements). 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 expect that this is a common problem for anyone's ideas. Not really, usually when people try to convince others of new ideas they appeal to some common framework of beliefs or common understanding they already share--that's why people are capable of changing each other's mind through reasoned arguments, rather than everyone just making arguments like if you grant that the Bible is the word of God, I can use passages from the Bible to show that it is indeed the word of God. 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. Why? Is there no universe [state] wherein the transitory meaning assigned to these symbols makes the sentence false? I intentionally wrote the statement out in english words to convey the notion that I was making a meaningful statement about our model of arithmetic, rather than quoting a string of arbitrary symbols which can be mapped to the model in a certain way but don't have to be. There is no logically possible universe where the *idea* I am expressing in english when I say one plus one equals two is false, although of course we can imagine a universe where a non-english-speaker might use that particular string of letters to mean something different, like my thorax is on fire (as we would translate the meaning of his statement in english). You might as well ask, where do the laws of logic come from? Do you consider the laws of logic to be information? The Laws of Logic [at least as we have assembled them in our little corner of our multiverse] establish a process designed to discover the information compressed into a system. A process takes place in a dimension we call time. Thus time is a hidden assumption in the Laws of Logic. I disagree. X AND Y - X does not imply that first you have X AND Y and then it somehow transforms into X at a later date, it just means if it is true that statements X and Y are both true, then statement X must be true. 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. There would still be the information contained in the existence of the contradiction which divides it from systems that are not contradictory. No it wouldn't, because if you abandon the laws of logic you can say that it is also true that this system is not contradictory--in other words, although it's true that both these contradictory statements are true (so the 'system' containing both is contradictory), it's also true that one is true and one is false (so the system containing both is not contradictory). Of course, you can now say the meta-system containing both the statements I just made is contradictory, but I can apply the exact same anti-logic to show this meta-system is not contradictory. And you can also use anti-logic to show that every statement I have made in this paragraph about the implications of anti-logic is false, including this one. Once you abandon the principle that if a statement is true, its negation must be false and vice-versa, then anything goes. Jesse
Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
Hal Ruhl: Hi Jesse: At 04:46 PM 12/12/2004, you wrote: Hal Ruhl wrote: 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. Do you grant that the All which contains all information contains a completed axiomatized arithmetic? No, because Godel proved that no axiomatic system can generate the set of all statements that would be true of our model of arithmetic (at least not without also generating false statements). Except an infinite one. Godel's theorem would also apply to infinite axiomatic systems whose axioms are recursively enumerable (computable). But sure, if you allow non-computable axiomatic systems, you could have one that was both complete and consistent. 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 expect that this is a common problem for anyone's ideas. Not really, usually when people try to convince others of new ideas they appeal to some common framework of beliefs or common understanding they already share--that's why people are capable of changing each other's mind through reasoned arguments, rather than everyone just making arguments like if you grant that the Bible is the word of God, I can use passages from the Bible to show that it is indeed the word of God. Well ideas of this nature then where the framework shifts. Since I don't understand your ideas I can't really comment. But I can't think of any historical examples of new mathematical/scientific/philosophical ideas that require you to already believe their premises in order to justify these premises. You might as well ask, where do the laws of logic come from? Do you consider the laws of logic to be information? The Laws of Logic [at least as we have assembled them in our little corner of our multiverse] establish a process designed to discover the information compressed into a system. A process takes place in a dimension we call time. Thus time is a hidden assumption in the Laws of Logic. I disagree. X AND Y - X does not imply that first you have X AND Y and then it somehow transforms into X at a later date, it just means if it is true that statements X and Y are both true, then statement X must be true. You miss my point. As I said in earlier posts the information is static, the process of uncovering it is not. So why couldn't the static ideas expressed by the laws of logic be timelessly true, even if we can only see the relationships between these truths in a sequential way? Try to stop thinking and reach a decision or uncover a truth. But what keeps thinking and deciding from being local illusions. I don't know, the justification of beliefs is a part of the field of epistemology, and I don't have any good theory of epistemology. But I generally trust my thought-processes nevertheless. 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. There would still be the information contained in the existence of the contradiction which divides it from systems that are not contradictory. No it wouldn't, because if you abandon the laws of logic you can say that it is also true that this system is not contradictory--in other words, although it's true that both these contradictory statements are true (so the 'system' containing both is contradictory), it's also true that one is true and one is false (so the system containing both is not contradictory). Of course, you can now say the meta-system containing both the statements I just made is contradictory, but I can apply the exact same anti-logic to show this meta-system is not contradictory. And you can also use anti-logic to show that every statement I have made in this paragraph about the implications of anti-logic is false, including this one. Once you abandon the principle that if a statement is true, its negation must be false and vice-versa, then anything goes. And why is anything goes a problem? Anything goes includes universes such as ours. The contradictory truths aren't truths about different domains, like different universes--then they really wouldn't be contradictory, since there's no contradiction involved in saying X is true in universe #1 but false in universe #2. I am talking about contradictory truths in a single domain, like it being simultaneously true that *our* universe contains stars and true that our universe does not contain stars. Anyway, are you now agreeing that if you abandon the laws of logic, you can solve the information problem by saying it is both true that
