I am deeply shocked by that terrible news.
I know most of you know how James was an everything
pillar, and how much we appreciate his short and accurate
posts.
I got the chance to meet James in Brussels the
22 june and I was so happy with the idea to
meet him again. He shows me the beginning
of a promising book he was working on. James will
perhaps finish it somewhere, but that will
not help us. We will miss him a lot.
My deepest thought for all who loved him.
Bruno
>----- Forwarded message from Jenny Higgo -----
>
>Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 06:09:44 -0700
>From: Jenny Higgo
>To: Hal Ruhl, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Consistency? Programs for G, G*, ...
>X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list
>
>James Higgo was killed in an air accident on 22nd July. He would be very
>sorry not to receive this e-mail. Still, if his many worlds theory is
>correct, perhaps he has received it another.
>Best wishes,
>Jenny Higgo (James' mother)
>
>> Dear George:
>>
>> Just a quick comment since I happened to read the end first.
>>
>> At 6/3/01, you wrote:
>>
>> >hmmmm... I thought that was a trick question. An axiomatic system cannot
>> >be both
>> >complete and consistent. Therefore there can't be a program for it. We go
>> >back on how
>> >you implement both G and G*.....
>> >
>> >
>> >George(s)
>>
>> As far as I know that is not true. I understand it to be that some
>> axiomatic systems are both complete and consistent.
>>
>> Godel deals with systems at the complexity of arithmetic and above.
>>
>> Chaitin puts an upper limit on the complexity of a proof in any axiomatic
>> system.
>>
>> IMO the everything is sufficiently low in complexity - no information at
>> all - that it is both
>> complete and consistent, thus it can not answer any question including that
>> of its own stability. So also with its [in my model] oscillatory alter ego
>> - The Nothing.
>>
>> Since at its heart I feel that Bruno's approach and mine are linked -
>> though at the moment I can not follow the majority of his explanation -
>> There is only one axiom => Nothing.
>>
>> While this must lead to an all universes concurrently system - again no
>> information - there can be no answer as to why we find ourselves in this
>> one based on a distribution of types because there can be no such
>distribution.
>>
>> The one we are in works to support SAS because large events are almost but
>> not quite deterministic. On the small event end of the spectrum I expect
>> that the curve hangs a bit - our universe's true noise content - before
>> rolling off to almost no one bit events.
>>
>> Hal
>>
>>
>>
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
