Hal, me again (John): Do you seriously mean "How many Nothings"? John
On Jan 7, 2008 12:12 PM, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---