Dear Hal, In general I am in agreement with your argument here but do not understand how it generalizes to the case where we consider a plurality of observers, each with their own sets of boundaries.

Kindest regards, Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 7:59 PM Subject: Re: Computational irreducibility and the simulability of worlds > Hi Stephen: > > What I am basically saying is that you can not define a thing without > simultaneously defining another thing that consists of all that is "left > over" in the ensemble of building blocks. I suspect that usually the "left > over" thing is of little practical use. > > However, this duality also applies to the "Nothing" and its left over which > is the "Everything". A look at this pair allows the derivation that the > boundary between them [the definition pair] can be represented as a > "normal" real and can not be a constant if zero info is to be maintained. > > Thus, given the dynamic, this boundary's representation as I said in the > last post can be modeled as the output of a computer with an infinite > number of asynchronous multiprocessors. A cellular automaton with > asynchronous cells. Universes are interpretations of this output. > > Sort of a left wing proof that we are "in" a massive computer. > > The Hintikka material you pointed me to is far too imbedded in mathematical > language symbols for me to understand. > > Yours > > Hal > > At 12:03 AM 4/13/2004, you wrote: > >Dear Hal, > > > > I will have to think about this for a while. Very interesting. Meanwhile > >I ask that you take a look at the game theoretic semantic idea by Hintikka. > > > >Kindest regards, > > > >Stephen