The following is a new effort to present my model in a more traditional way.

The basic idea is that the concepts of "nothing" and "everything" [i.e. a maximum expression of "something"] are not totally antagonistic but are actually synergistic. DEFINITIONS: 1) Information: The potential to parse [herein "parse" is used to mean to divide as with a boundary]. 2) Factual: A particular parsing. [like: {red, green, blue}] 3) Counterfactual: A factual [factual B] that to some degree effects the parsing of another factual [factual A] {like: brown}. Note that a factual that has a counterfactual is itself a counterfactual. 4) Complete set of counterfactuals: A set of counterfactuals that leaves no member factual uneffected in any of its aspects. {like: gray} AXIOMS: 1) A void consisting of the absence of factuals herein called the "Nothing" exists. 2) A collection of all complete sets of counterfactuals herein called the "Everything" exists. 3) There are no other existences at or above the level of the Everything and the Nothing. PROPOSITIONS: Proposition 1: The Everything and the Nothing are counterfactuals. Proof: The Everything is a parsing since it is a collection of a particular kind of factual. The Nothing is a parsing since it excludes all factuals from itself. These two parsings effect each other to some degree. The existence of the Everything would tend to put a factual in the void and thereby suppress the concept of the Nothing and the existence of the Nothing would tend to suppress the necessity for the Everything - no factuals equals no parsing potential. Thus Proposition 1 is true by Definitions 2 & 3 and Axioms 1 & 2. In addition to the suppression, The Everything and the Nothing also enhance each other to some degree as follows. Proposition 2: The Everything contains the Nothing. Proof: True by Proposition 1 and Axioms 1, 2, & 3. Axiom 3 makes the Everything/Nothing pair a complete set of counterfactuals. Proposition 3: The Everything contains itself: Proof: True by Proposition 1 and Axioms 2 and 3. Proposition 4: The Everything is infinitely nested with itself and the Nothing. Proof: True by Propositions 2 and 3. Interpretation: The Everything and the Nothing form a synergistic pair - their simultaneous existence is "easier" than either existence by itself. Proposition 5: The nesting has a dynamic. Proof: A fixed parsing between the Nothing and the Everything would constitute the presence of an uneffected factual within the Everything contradicting Axiom 2. Possible interpretation: Proposition 5 can be realized if the Nothing/Everything parsing "surface" is composed of a dynamic mix of the "surfaces" of the counterfactuals constituting the Everything. The counterfactuals on this "surface" are - while so situated - slightly less effected than when they are remote from this "surface". It is the patterns formed by the shifting mix of "surface" counterfactuals that are interpreted as universes. To support this interpretation the following axioms are incorporated into the model. Axiom 4: The members of a complete set of counterfactuals must be intertwined as in a foamy fractal to sustain the effectiveness of the set. Axiom 5: Universes sustain themselves by finding a succeeding pattern on this "surface" that is consistent with their individual rules of state succession as their current pattern vanishes with the dynamic. Proposition 6: There is no restriction on the structure of the various individual universe state succession rules. Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5. Interpretative consequent: Some of the rules would have a "Do not care" component in terms of the selection of a succeeding pattern. This is the same as the rules of these universes allowing an external random oracle input or true noise into the state succession process for such universes. Proposition 7: All universes are subject to true noise. Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5. Interpretation: Even if their rules have no "Do not care" component such universes must nevertheless be subject to an external random oracle. Hal