Dear George:

At 8/15/01, you wrote:

>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 
>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 
>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 
>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.


Reply via email to