Dear George:

1) By "alter ego" I mean something on the order of "constant companion" 
which is a meaning in my dictionary.

2) By "know" I mean does the system contain a resolution to a particular 
meaningful question.

The Nothing contains no information so it "knows" only itself: Nothing? => 
true.

3) I mean stability in the engineering sense.  It is the only other 
relevant question I can see and the Nothing must resolve it.  It is a 
meaningful question for the Nothing. Since it has no information the 
question of stability can be addressed only experimentally by a 
perturbation to the Nothing.

The smallest and perhaps only available perturbation the Nothing can 
experience is to become the other manifestation of no information - the 
Everything.

When this takes place it replaces the Nothing absolutely.  The Nothing is 
not a stable state.

However, the Everything has similar "properties": Everything? => true.
Stability? => testable only.

The smallest and perhaps only perturbation to the Everything is to become 
the Nothing.  This replaces the Everything absolutely.  The Everything is 
not a stable state.

etc. etc. etc.

Each time the Everything is manifest it must in some way be a "different" 
Everything or a selection will have been made resulting in non zero 
information in the Nothing/Everything system.  This seems possible based on 
the idea of meta pattern - geometry - rather than an ensemble of bit strings.

5) The two "constant companions" are "antipodal" expressions of no information:
Pole #1: Nothing? => true.
Pole #2: Everything? => true.

Regardless of the eventual usefulness of these ideas I really do not see 
how they are so hard to follow.

Hal



Reply via email to