The statement "it contains no information" IS information. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ (In "my" Plenitude story the "no info - infinite invariance total symmetry" requires correction in this spirit. The "infinite variety" dose not fit: it intrinsically includes repetitions of similars (and that is a major point for generating universes) which (transitionally) falls out from both the infinite symmetry and the infinite invariance. Which is the fulguration for universe-formation, as observable complexity. Sorry for the digression: I am reworking my 2000 text in this sense.
John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes"; ----- Original Message ----- From: "H J Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 1:11 AM Subject: Re: Bruno's UDA argument > Dear Hal: > > The idea that the Everything does not contain the UD appears self > contradictory. > > That said the Everything as a system is generally thought of by some at > least as containing no information. [Otherwise where did this information > come from?] To sustain this requirement it must contain counterfactuals to > the UD. Among these would be universe generators whose foundation is > anything but the UD [or any ensemble of UDs]. > > Having reached that result, at least some of these generators would form an > ensemble subject - by their internal structure - to the injection of > external random noise originating in the remainder of the Everything. > > Is it possible to sustain a no information Everything if there is a > selection in which this latter ensemble is the only generators subject to > such noise? The very concept of any selection within the Everything > necessarily places information within the Everything and must thus be > disallowed. > > My conclusion is the all generators within the Everything are subject to > such noise by some mechanism or another. > > Further I think that from this I would have to conclude that no > differential measure of any sort [actually a selection result] between > universes can arise over the ensemble of all universes. > > As to consciousness I do not believe a decent definition of it is extant > but I do believe for obvious reasons that - whatever it is - it is only > supported in a universe with noise of external origin there being no other > kind of universe - IMO. > > All of this is OK as far as I can tell since one can see our universe > inside the complete ensemble but I see it as being in the part of the > ensemble that contains those universes that are subject to the noise by > their internal structure as opposed to the UD type of generator which would > be subject to this noise to avoid a selection. > > There is no reason that I can see why some of these universes subject to > noise by their internal structure would not evolve in a way that appears > [internally] to follow simple rules expressible in a mathematics. I also > believe there are easy ways to demonstrate that features of our universe > can be based on such a foundation. > > Further I do not see that universes evolving in a highly random way can not > be an alternate base for a universe evolving by simple rather well behaved > rules if we allow that intervening states inconsistent with such a view go > unnoticed by an observer - whatever that is - that considers itself to be > in the supposed well behaved universe. > > Hal > > >
