Dear Brent:

At 07:00 PM 6/4/00 -0700, you wrote:

>I'm confused by several aspects of your idea.  First, it is not clear how
>random strings represent information.  Although a random sequence has maximal
>information in Shannon's sense, this is a purely formal measure and for the
>sequence to actually represent information requires and interpretation (and an

The interpreter is the long string to which the short string attaches 
itself.  The interpretive link is a requirement that the short string be 
Godelian "meaningful" to the existing long string.  I have mapped such 
events to what are otherwise called quantum fluctuations.

>  Second, I don't understand the sense in which some information
>can cancel other information - are you referring to what are called 
>in non-monotonic logic?, i.e. pieces of information that throw into doubt
>previous conclusions?

Well what I am trying to cover is my notion that the entire set still 
should total to zero information.

>Third, the idea of 'the process is the continuing
>addition' implies that the formal system is evolving in time.

That is correct.  As I said above we see these as quantum 
fluctuations.  For example the addition of a virtual pair of particles 
forever increases the alphabet of the fc-FAS even if the pair subsequently 
extinguish each other.

>But an
>explanation of the universe must explain time - not take it as a primitive.

See my response to Higgo on this issue.

>Already theories such as Hawkings "no boundary" theory do this. Your idea of
>theorems from zero axioms sounds interesting - but how does it work.

I use a kind of incompleteness.  The empty fc-FAS implies but does not yet 
contain the answer to the question of its own stability.  The implied 
question must be answered, so the empty fc-FAS decays to the Plenitude 
which ultimately contains a string that answers the question.

Thus the initiator "nothing" becomes the axiom of the Plenitude.


Reply via email to