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
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.
>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.