Some initial musings on extending my one page model to cover SAS:
The only characteristics I can see that can distinguish various portions of
a given isomorphism are:
i) The way in which they interact during successive isomorphic links with
other portions of the isomorphism.
ii) The manner in which the random or "Do not care" portion of the rules of
isomorphic succession apply to them.
As for the first - SAS seek out other portions of the isomorphism [ranging
from individual "particles" [such as photons] to whole collections of
"particles" [such as a slice of roast]] and absorb some part of them.
As for the second - SAS - in order to accomplish the first - need to be
structured so that more medium and large size acceptable succession
cascades [medium and large "events" within a series of successive
isomorphic links] are triggered by the random portion of the rules than for
non SAS portions of the isomorphism. This is necessary because "seek" is
an incomplete information concept - SAS have to hunt information and food.
Observation:
An observation is just the change in a SAS that takes place from a current
"Something" to its immediate successor acceptable "Something" for that
SAS's universe.
Free will:
If no portion of the next "Something" is acceptable as an isomorphic link
for a SAS's universe even with the random content of the rules then that
universe skips until an acceptable link is found in some future "Something".
Free will can only be found in a SAS's ability - if any - to restrict the
range of acceptable successor isomorphic links, that is to reduce the
degree to which the random portion of the rules of succession apply to its
own structure.
I currently see no reason why some portions of a isomorphism could not have
a structure that has the above distinctions that establish it as a SAS
while also exhibiting "free will".
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A slightly edited version of the initial post is below
1) The single postulate is "The total system contains no information."
2) The "Nothing" contains at least some information:
Whenever it is manifest any question asking if it is manifest
must receive the response "yes".
3) #2 violates the postulate so the system must contain more component(s),
i.e. a "Something" or succession of "Somethings" or an ensemble of all
possible "Somethings" that balance or neutralize this information.
4) The "Nothing" since it contains information can not be stable with
respect to the manifestation of the other component(s) or the system again
violates the postulate because no neutralization is possible.
5) Any individual "Something" or a simultaneously manifest ensemble of all
possible "Somethings" must also comply with #2 so are violations of the
postulate and unstable with respect to the "Nothing".
6) The instabilities result in an alternation between the "Nothing" and the
other component(s).
7) The incorporation into the system of a FIXED "other component" which is
either an individual "Something" or the complete ensemble of "Somethings"
is a selection representing additional information which can not be
balanced out by corresponding antipodal information present in the "Nothing".
8) The way to make the total system comply with the postulate:
a) The Nothing alternates with a succession of "Somethings" randomly
selected [no rules of selection control] from the ensemble.
b) The selection of the next "Something" out of the ensemble must be random
or the selection process is additional information in violation of the
postulate.
c) The ensemble contains an infinite number of individual "Somethings" so
there can be no endless loops of repeats which would represent additional
information and are forbidden by the postulate.
-------------------
Evolving universes are successive isomorphisms [isomorphic links] to some
portion of each successive "Something".
An individual "Something" is just a pattern and a given universe is just an
isomorphism to a portion of this pattern.
Each manifestation of the "Nothing" corresponds to the emptiness or gap
between successive discrete isomorphisms of universe evolution.
Enduring evolving universes with fully deterministic rules of isomorphism
succession find no home in this model because the gap for such universes
would quickly become open ended. This violates the "Nothing" "Something"
alternation and the condition of "evolving".
The total system or "Grand Ensemble" is the "Everything". It contains no
information and it can not contain enduring fully deterministic universes.
