Hal, before the time when we met on another list I tackled 'similar' concerns. Very briefly: I picked "nothingness" rather than "nothing". The first reaction was: If I consider "nothingness" at all, it already became "somethingness". This was how I started to build up the world at that time (~1990). Later I learned about the (alleged) energy content of vacuum, (calculkated some ^120 of the material content of our universe...) which has fit perfectly in my own nonsense-speculation. Just a reminiscense Cheers John Mikes ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 6:43 PM Subject: Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?
> 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. > > Hal > > > > > > > > Hal >
