Mathematical vs Physical reality

[Hal Ruhl]

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 
"reality".

Hal Ruhl