The following is a combination of several of my previous ideas which forces me to raise a question re "measure" in this 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 pair or boundary between the "Nothing" and "Everything" partners is randomly dynamic - equivalent to a random sequence of normal reals.

5) A universal dovetailer computer [the computer plus its collective dynamic input and output] 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.

8) Universes are interpretations of sections of the normal real string.

9) Now a question is how many of these interpretations have internal rules that allow input from an external random oracle? If we are to maintain a zero information system then the answer must be a randomly changing percentage. So all interpretations must be able change character i.e. be subject to an external random oracle the internal rules of the particular interpretation notwithstanding.

10) What this means is that there remains some information in the system - the computer itself is incorrectly defined - to get rid of this problem the computer has to function like any computer I ever used - it must make random errors.

I do not see how one can extract from this any "measure" re anything which to me seems reasonable since there should be no information in there anyway.



Reply via email to