This is a slight expansion on my previous post under the "simulation" thread.

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.

6) Notice that the "Everything" also has a logical problem. Looking at the same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible answers. Just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal information which is not an aspect of the "Everything". Thus the "Everything" is inconsistent.

7) Thus the entire system while being - apparently - the only game in town is also both incomplete and inconsistent.

Hal


Reply via email to