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.
----- 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
> over" thing is of little practical use.
> However, this duality also applies to the "Nothing" and its left over
> 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
> language symbols for me to understand.
> At 12:03 AM 4/13/2004, you wrote:
> >Dear Hal,
> > I will have to think about this for a while. Very interesting.
> >I ask that you take a look at the game theoretic semantic idea by
> >Kindest regards,