The following is a combination of two of my previous ideas which together simplify my attempt to "prove" that a computer is a good model of the substrate of a multi universe venue for our apparent sequence of states.
1) The first step is to examine the act of definition. In this case the
definition of a "Nothing". Any definition process simultaneously defines
two entities. The definition is a boundary between an entity of interest
and the leftover building blocks. In the special case of a "Nothing" the
left over is an "Everything". Thus the two are dependent partners. Since
the "Everything" contains all information the definition pair must itself
specify all information and can be represented by a normal real.
2) A "Nothing" has an interesting logical problem: It can not answer any
meaningful question about itself. Assuming there is a relevant meaningful
question a "Nothing" would be incomplete. An inescapable meaningful
question is its own stability. This is not only meaningful it is
impossible to avoid answering.
3) To attempt to answer this question a "Nothing" randomly and
spontaneously "decays" towards an "Everything" to resolve its
incompleteness. But this is not sustainable since an "Everything" is not
independent of a "Nothing". Therefore a "Nothing" rebounds from the decay.
4) Thus the definition or boundary between the "Nothing" and "Everything"
pair is randomly dynamic equivalent to a random sequence of normal reals.
5) A universal computer is a good way to model a selector of a random
sequence of normal reals.
- Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Hal Ruhl
- Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Frank Cizmich
- Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer? George Levy
- Re: Are we simulated by some massive comput... Bruno Marchal