Michiel de Long is partially correct in his comment on my position. 
However, I view a focus on computable universes as a selection. IMO it 
injects a type of absolute information into the Everything.

IMO the Everything needs to be selection and relationship free as well as 
contain no information such as a resolution of the question of its own 
stability or a global measure etc.

As to SAS type vs universe type to me its self referential. To pick a SAS 
type is to pick a universe type. Here I think I agree with Russell Standish.

However, for the various universes to have relative properties such as 
unequal equivalence classes is to inject the Everything with net 
relationship information.  This I feel is unacceptable.

IMO to accomplish a lack of relationship information all universes and all 
relationships between universes need to be repeated an infinite number of 
times.  I think this results in the loss of any and all uniqueness to all 
elements of the Everything which is what I am looking for.

The real objective as I see it is to construct a zero information 
Everything that one can demonstrate is compatible with our universe's 
existence and the existence of all the others.

As to what type of universe/SAS pair we are I prefer to think we are in a 
universe that has some degree of required true noise content. In this I 
believe I again agree with Russell Standish.  Taking a lesson from 
steganography [re hiding coded messages in images] up to about 30% of our 
universe could be junk true noise and we might never notice even if we did 
recognize the existence of any additional and required true noise.

Can this question of our SAS type be resolved?  I think so. I think the 
answer lies in the study of the information budget and logistics of our 


Reply via email to