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 >interpreter?). 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 >'defeaters' >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. Hal
