Please allow me to try this one more time since I think I see why it did 
not make it into the posted archive and I have a change to my additional 

In #10 I discuss the length of the descriptive string.  A better way to 
state what is said there may be to indicate that I am only interested in 
the structure of the finite prefix of what might be an infinite 
string.  The infinite tail if there is one is "invaded" for lack of a 
better term as the length of the prefix increases until the prefix is 
itself infinite.

This is an improved presentation of my current TOE model.  Its a bit more 
than one page.

I believe I see some shadow of both Juergen's approach and Bruno's approach 
in it.  The intermediate step has unfinished business and the lowest level 
is a bit like a duplicator, transporter.

1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information."

2)  Two distinct expressions of "no information" are recognized by the model:

         a) The "Nothing" which is devoid of any information whatsoever.

         b) The "Everything" which contains all information.

      These are not identical.  Rather they are antipodal in that neither
      can contain the other because of a stability issue.

3) The stability issue is the unavoidable emergence of a question of the 
stability of the manifestation of either of these expressions of "no 
information" should either actually become manifest.  This manifestation 
must either be stable or not with respect to the alternate expressions of 
"no information".  Thus the alternate expression must be separately 
available for manifestation and the stability question must have a resolution.

4) If either expression of "No information" becomes manifest then the 
resolution of the stability question represents information and violates 
the postulate.

5) A way to make the total system comply with the postulate:

     a) Both the "Nothing" and the "Everything" are in a simultaneous
         partial manifestation.

      b) To avoid any information including any permanent selection in this 
          and thus comply with the postulate the partial manifestation of
          the "Everything" is realized by the actual but temporary
          manifestation of randomly selected pieces of the "Everything" herein
          called patterns each of which has a manifestation of random duration.

6) Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some portion of those 
patterns with overlapping manifestations.

7) Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of 
isomorphism succession find no home in this model because they would find 
no sustainable state to state trajectory within the random nature of the 
partial manifestation of the "Everything".  The rules of an enduring 
universe must be partly true noise.

8) The cascade representation for state Sj(i + 1) of universe j while in 
state Sj(i) is:

     (1)      P'j(i + 1) =  {R'j(i)[Pj(i)]} determines the group of pairs:

                          {R'jk(i + 1),Sjk(i + 1)}; k = 1 to sj(i).

Where: Pj(i) is the shortest self delimiting program that computes Sj(i).
             R'j(i) is the current full set of rules that act on the 
current state
                    [represented in its compressed condition].
             sj(i) is the number of acceptable successor {rule set, state} 
pairs to
                   Sj(i) due to the true noise content of R'j(i).

Pj(i) contains Rj(i) which is a deterministic derivative of R'j(i - 1) used 
only to allow the compression of the data in Sj(i) and a self delimiter DeL(i).

R'j(i) is the full and partially non deterministic true noise containing 
successor to R'j(i - 1).

9) The first of the {R'jk(i + 1), Sjk(i + 1)} pairs to be represented in a 
sub section of one of the manifest patterns becomes the next state and its 
rules [isomorphic link] of universe j as the pattern supporting the current 
link loses its own manifestation.

Once this happens the precursor program P'(i + 1) is replaced with Pj(i + 
1) and the applicable Sjk(i + 1) becomes Sj(i + 1).  So we get:

      (2)       Pj(i + 1) = {Rj(i + 1)[P(i)] + DeL(i + 1)} computes Sj(i + 1).

So operating on this with R'j(i + 1) in a manner similar to (1) gives the 
next iteration to the cascade:

      (3)       P'j(i + 2) = {R'j(i + 1)[Pj(i + 1)} determines the group of 

                          {R'jk(i + 2),Sjk(i + 2)}; k = 1 to sj(i + 1).

and so on.

10) The model's focus on the use of a discrete point space for a universe 
is due to:

      a) Notice that each successive Pj() is longer than its predecessor if 
Rj() does
          not decrease in length and ultimately any such shortening of Rj() 
will be
          swamped out.   Over the long haul then Pj() increases in length.

      b) As the length of Pj() increases the length of the string it 
computes and
          which represents Sj() must increase in length [perhaps not always
          synchronized with length changes in Pj()] if it is to maintain a 
          of internal correlation - an aspect which is considered necessary to
          support SAS - but nevertheless contain more complexity.

      c) Finite strings can easily increase in length by adding short strings.

Thus the string is considered finite and must describe the location of 
points within any space on a grid with finite pitch.

The possibility of infinitely long highly correlated tails on the strings 
that are skipped by the rules of succession is considered an unnecessary 

11) Exploring the dynamics of (1), (2), and (3) is most interesting and 
will be covered in later posts.

12) The most interesting space so far explored is face centered cubic.


Reply via email to