> 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
> 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.
> Hal

Reply via email to