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
