# Re: My model presented more traditionally

Further improvememts.

Proposal:

The concepts of "Nothing" and "Everything" [1def] are not antagonistic, but are actually synergistic and bootstrap "existence".

Justification:

AXIOMS:

Referring first to [1def] through [6def]:

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 [3def] and [4def] 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. Even more focused is to view the synergism as being the "existence" and Axioms 1, 2, and 3 continuously bootstrap each other to sustain it.

The Everything/Nothing nesting is not considered as having dimensionality or of being in or on a dimension, but rather as an infinite entanglement of potential.

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 maintain the complete "effectiveness" only when uninterruptedly intertwined as in a foamy fractal .

Axiom 5: Universes sustain themselves by finding a succeeding pattern on the Everything/Nothing "surface" that is consistent with their individual rules of state succession as their current pattern vanishes with the dynamic.

Proposition 6: The dynamic of Proposition 5 is random.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "A fixed evolution of the parsing between the Nothing and the Everything would....".

Proposition 7: There is no restriction on the structure of the various individual universe state succession rules.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "Any such restriction would....".

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 [7def] into the state succession process for such universes.

Proposition 8: All universes are subject to true noise.

Proof: Same form of proof as for Proposition 5 but substituting "By Proposition 7 at least some universes are subject to true noise by their own internal rules. If true noise susceptibility of universes is indeed restricted to "some" it would .....".

Interpretation: Even if their rules have no "Do not care" component such universes must nevertheless be subject to an external random oracle.

There would be two general types of universes. Type #1 have internal rules that do not allow true noise as they evolve and type #2 have rules that do. Both are actually subject to true noise since the dynamic of the Everything/Nothing synergism is the apex of the overall system's hierarchical dynamic and dominates the internal dynamic rules of all interpretations within the synergism. There is also a bidirectional flow between type #1 and type #2 since the right dose of true noise will switch the type of any universe.

NOTES

[1def] Everything: Intended as a maximum expression of "something" - see Axiom 2.

[2def] Information: The potential to parse [herein "parse" is used to mean to divide as with a boundary].

[3def] Factual: A particular parsing. [like: {red, green, blue}]

[4def] Counterfactual: A factual [factual B] that to some degree effects the parsing of another factual [factual A] {like the red, green, blue combination resulting in brown}. Note that a factual that has a counterfactual is itself a counterfactual.

[5def] Complete set of counterfactuals: A set of counterfactuals that leaves no member factual uneffected in any of its aspects. {like: gray}

[6def] "Effect": An all inclusive range of influences between counterfactuals. [One type of influence between counterfactuals would be where "existence" encompasses two logic systems such that in one the statement "A" is true and in the other the statement "Not A" is true. This may be far narrower than the range of influences that may be necessarily encompassed in "effect" as used herein.]

[7def] True Noise: In the model, current states of universes are interpretations of the patterns of the counterfactuals that happen to be currently on the Everything/Nothing surface. The patterns shift randomly and a universe has to find a new compatible pattern to survive. A universe that has rules of state succession that allows for portions of the new pattern to be determined solely by the shifting dynamic - a "Do not care" content to the rules - rather than by the rules acting on the data of the current state is a universe whose succession of states is subject to the external random dynamic [external random oracle] to some degree. This is true noise injection into that universe via its own internal rules.

Hal