I am currently in the middle of rewriting my cell re Alastair's Agreed Fundamentals project along the lines of my recent posts. I attach a draft below because to an extent I believe it is similar to some of what Bruno is saying. "Arithmetic truth" is a component of "all potential to divide" [see below]. However, I see no "observer" or role for one [or more].


Draft of HRM01V09

[1def] cf-Information: The potential to divide as with a boundary. An Example: The information in a Formal Axiomatic System [FAS] divides true statements from not true statements relevant to that FAS.

[2def] cf-All information: A packet of all potentials to divide [the "Everything"].

[3def] cf-Definition: A Definition is a potential to divide the cf-all information packet into two [a pair of] sub packets. [One sub packet contains the information in the entity of interest and the other sub packet contains the left over information.]

One such sub packet pair results from the definition of a "Nothing" that contains no information leaving behind the "Everything". Defining an "Everything" as in [2def] results in the same pair.

The "Nothing" is incomplete because it can not resolve questions re its own stability.

The "Nothing" tries to resolve this incompleteness by gaining information but this is not possible since the "Everything" requires a "Nothing".

This causes the boundary between the "Nothing" and the "Everything" to have a random dynamic.

Universes are interpretations of this boundary [the Plenitude?]

Reply via email to