At 9/13/01, you wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > This is a simple and short effort to present my current
> > ideas. To aid
> > communication it is not intended to follow an established means of
> > mathematical expression. I am completely out of time so I
> > hope it reads ok.
>Please let me know if I've misunderstood...
> > 1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information."
>That's a good starting point. It implies a sort of information symmetry in
>which every bits of information is cancelled out
> > 2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information:
> > Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest
> > must receive the response "yes".
The idea here is that while manifest the "Nothing" must consider itself to
be "true". This is information in the form of the ability to resolve a
>I don't understand this bit at all, sorry!
> > 3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more
> > component(s),
> > i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an
> > ensemble of all
> > possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information.
> > 4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with
> > respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the
> > system again
> > violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible.
>Why is no neutralisation possible for a stable "Nothing" ? Can't it be
>balanced by another stable "Something" (or "Nothing",
The above information must be balanced out by an equal amount of
information that make the manifestation of the "Nothing" "false" rather
than "true". If the "Nothing" is ever "false" it must be replaced by
> > 5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest
> > ensemble of all
> > possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are
> > violations of the
> > postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing".
> > 6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the
> > "Nothing" and the
> > other component(s).
> > 7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other
> > component" which is
> > either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of
> > "Somethings"
> > is a selection representing additional information
> > which can not be balanced out by corresponding antipodal information
> > present in the "Nothing".
> > 8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate:
> > a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly
> > selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble.
> > b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble
> > must be random
> > or the selection process is additional information in
> > violation of the
> > postulate.
> > c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual
> > "Somethings" so
> > there can be no endless loops of repeats which would
> > represent additional
> > information and are forbidden by the postulate.
> > -------------------
> > Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms to some
> > portion of each
> > successive "Something".
> > Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the
> > emptiness or gap
> > between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution.
> > Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of
> > isomorphism
> > succession find no home in this model because the gap for
> > such universes
> > would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing"
> > "Something"
> > alternation.
> > The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It
> > contains no
> > information and it can not contain enduring fully
> > deterministic universes.
>This sounds very interesting. I wish I could understand it better! If you
>have time could you post something which is more
>understandable to the layman?
I will try as soon as I see what all the initial comments are.