Dear George: At 8/15/01, you wrote:

## Advertising

>The Nothing is the converse of the Everything (Plenitude). Nothing is like >a black >screen. Everything is like a white screen. What they have in common is zero >information. I prefer to think in terms of the Everything axiom than in >terms of >the Nothing axiom. The reason is that other conditions you may decide to >bring in, >act as constraints that restrict the range of the universe you live in and >it's >easier to restrict the Everything than to build on the Nothing. This >approach is in >fact partially validated in quantum physics in which any phenomenon which >is not >expressly forbidden is compulsory. My point is that the Nothing is unstable. It does not know this - it can only test it. Since it has no information it is also unaware of the possibility of an Everything. The Everything is also unstable but in its case it is unaware of the possibility of the Nothing. The difference between the two is this antipodal lack of information. The smallest perturbation away from either that could establish an answer to the stability question is to become its alter ego. Thus an oscillation results which is also unstable since it can have no history - no information. A given manifestation of the Everything is not in my view a white screen but an expression of no information that consists of a meta pattern of all possible patterns. States of universes are isomorphic links to sections of this meta pattern. Each oscillation must produce a new meta pattern or a selected Everything - non zero information - would result. Isomorphic shifts to acceptable [consistent?] sections of the new meta pattern are the transitions between successive states of universes. >Now this being said, starting with the Everything axiom (or Plenitude >axiom) is OK >but not sufficient. You are ignoring the anthropic constraint. If you >factor in >this constraint you'll find that the only systems which are acceptable are >those >with a complexity equal or greater than arithmetic. Otherwise, conscious >thought is >not possible. IMO this is the wrong way to parse the thing. Nearly random strings may be considered very complex, but can also be considered to contain little dynamically useable information. They are merely descriptive of a particular state of a structure. IMO the correct parsing for SAS friendliness is in terms of degree of randomness with highly random universes and highly ordered universes both being SAS unfriendly. Arithmetic may be too random to be a functional part of the rules of a SAS friendly universe. All that is necessary to support SAS [the anthropic constraint?] is sufficiently non random rules for the selection of acceptable successor isomorphic links to sections of the succession of meta patterns > > > > 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. > > > >I am puzzled by the whole concept of distribution when the number of items is >infinite. As Jacques Mallah has pointed out that the methods of limits >should take >care of that. I am still not satisfied. IMO, when the number of items is >infinite, >their ordering seems to be an important issue in defining the >distribution. Yet how >is this ordering defined without resorting to distribution? IMO trying to find non uniform distributions within the Everything is equivalent to saying it contains information. An equal frequency for all patterns - one of each - within a given meta pattern is a uniform distribution of an infinite number of patterns IMO equivalent to the ensemble of all possible bit strings [no information in the ensemble] except for a geometry - the current meta pattern itself. This geometry represents no information because it has no basis for comparison - previous and future meta patterns are not accessible. Hal