Greetings Everyone. It has been a long time since I posted.
As pointed to recently by Russell Standish several years ago I posted an
idea to the effect that the "Nothing" was an incomplete system since it
could not answer the unavoidable and meaningful question of its own stability.
Thus the "Nothing" must spontaneously break its symmetry [to use a physical
expression] into a cascade of bifurcations following branching
incompleteness, that is each possible new axiom is incorporated in both its
positive and negative form creating a branch. Some branches become
complete and truncate. Once any branch contains arithmetic [maybe lower]
the future of the branch must bifurcate to infinity because consistency is
no longer provable [truncation of branches stops].
Each bifurcation starts a new universe.
Today I am working with Alastair Malcolm on my idea that the mere defining
of a "Nothing" requires the simultaneous definition of an "Everything" and
the two participate in a dance of instability the randomly dynamic boundary
of which generates as interpretations infinite random numbers in random
sequence each of which supports universes as interpretations of the number.
The second approach is one step back from the first and upon reflection
seems to contain it since each number generated by the second should be
able to support universes that are on the bifurcation tree of the first.
In neither case does "number" seem to come first. But logic is there as
well as "physics" in the form of the question of stability and thus some
notion of "time".
So mathematics and physics based on these ideas seem to share the same
- Continuation of "group selection" and "emerg... Eric Hawthorne
- Mathematical vs Physical reality Hal Ruhl