Hal, I read your post with appreciation (did not follow EVERY word in it though) - it reminded me of my "Naive Ode (no rhymes) of Ontology" dating back into my "pre-Everythinglist" times, that started something like:
"...In the Beginning there was Nothingness ( - today I would add: observer of itself). When it realized that it IS nothingness, that was providing this information - making it into a Somethingness. The rest is history. (Chris Lofting would say: it went alongside Differentiation and Integration). A minor remark: I would not denigrate Mama Nature by using the word 'bifurcation' - indicating that "only 2" chances in the impredicative unlimited totality. As a second (even more minor) remark: "All possible states" sounds to me as being restricted to the level "WE" find possible. Since cave-times (I don't go further) we have encountered many things that looked like impossible. I wonder if Bruno's unlimited Loebian Machine considers anything 'iompossible'? Have a good 2008 John M On Jan 6, 2008 3:54 PM, Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Russell: > > I have at last found a opportunity to start looking at your > book. Thanks for the cite. > > My view has been that the Nothing is incomplete because it contains > no ability to answer meaningful questions about itself and there is > one it must answer and that is its duration. This question is always > asked and must be answered. To answer it the Nothing must acquire > information and become a Something. > > Most initial Something landing pads - so to speak - will also be > incomplete and continue the quest for completeness. Such a quest > must exhibit a monotonic increase in information in that Something. > > Therefore the initial observation of an incomplete and unstable > Nothing has within it the imposition of an ordered sequence of > compatible states for a Something each containing more information > than the last - that is the imposition of time. > > Each step of the quest has an equal but opposite twin and so to > minimize selection a Something bifurcates at each one. > > The Everything contains enough Nothings [meaningful question: How > many more Nothings beyond 1 are in the Everything? Minimum selection > response: unlimited.] so that all paths to completeness are followed > over and over forever. > > Hal Ruhl > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
