Dear Charles: The "Nothing" can not contain that much information if it is not balanced out. If it was completely balanced then the "Somethings" would have the same duration which would be net information in violation of the postulate.
Hal At 9/13/01, you wrote: >It would certainly be difficult to try to define for how long nothing exists! > >Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2001 3:53 p.m. > > To: Charles Goodwin > > Subject: RE: In one page or less > > > > > > Dear Charles: > > > > I do not see any sort of "time" in the sense of something one > > can measure > > by a clock. The alternation as I have tried to point out in > > earlier posts > > is itself unstable as to period to use an engineering point > > of view. It is > > unstable since each transition destroys any history of the > > total system. > > This is acceptable since the total system can not accumulate > > any additional > > information since it contains no information which is > > accepted here to be > > the same as all information. > > > > Hal > > > > At 9/13/01, you wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hal Ruhl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > > > >I think I get it. If nothing exists, that is a state > > which contains some > > > > >information (i.e. "nothing exists"). To reduce the total > > > > >information content of the system to zero, the state of > > nothing existing > > > > >must be balanced by states in which something exist. Is > > > > >that right (roughly) ? > > > > > > > > Yes that is my current offering to the effort. I see the > > Everything since > > > > it contains all information as both manifest and not manifest > > > > simultaneously. It would be in a sort of fuzzy logic state > > > > like 1/2 rather than either 0 or 1. > > > > > >If nothing exists, including any external time, then the > > Everything (also > > >known as "the Plenitude", perhaps) contains all available > > >states as a fixed N-dimensional structure (N might well be > > uncountable > > >infinity). If there *is* an external time, on the other hand, > > >one can imagine some sort of alternation between Nothing and > > Something. > > >(Otherwise the only sort of alternation possible is a sort > > >of logical one, perhaps?) > > > > > >Charles