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