# Re: Are we simulated by some massive computer?

```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
>

```