Dear Hal, Could the Nothing be a generalization of the notion of the Null or Empty set?

One question that I have is "what moves?" It seems that I am merely re-asking Zeno's question... How is motion, whether it is the UD moving infinitely slowly from string to string or your example of a "shackwave", what is the reason "MOTION" exists? What necessitates motion and change a priori? Stephen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 12:18 PM Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... > Hi Bruno: > > At 09:34 AM 6/30/2004, you wrote: > > >If your system is inconsistent then it is obviously Turing computable > >(just write a generator > >of ALL arithmetical formula). > >But I am not sure your system is inconsistent. Well, I am not sure it is a > >"system", or > >perhaps you just fail to present it as such, probably. > > > > > >Bruno > > As for my model and its system I was referring to my post of June 8 which > because I can not get on the escribe site to get the URL right now I have > copied below. > > Ok so if I accept that the Everything half of the system is Truing > computable what about the Nothing half which is the incomplete part. In > this case there is no output. > > So if indeed evolving metaverses are the result of an "interaction" between > the two then they can only be incomplete and evolve inconsistently. > > xxxxxxxxxx > > Prior post: > > 1) Given that the following definitions are sound: > > The Everything: That which contains all. > > The Nothing: That which is empty of all. > > A Something: A division of the Everything into two subparts. > > 2) These are unavoidable because at least one must exist > > 3) They are interdependent so that you can not have one without the whole set. > > 4) Notice that "Definition" is the same as establishing a boundary between > what a thing is and another thing that is all that the first thing is not. > > 5) The Nothing has a logical problem: It can not answer any meaningful > question about itself including the unavoidable one of its own stability. > > 6) To answer this unavoidable question the Nothing must at some point > "penetrate" the boundary between itself and the Everything in an attempt to > complete itself. > > 7) However, the boundary is permanent as required by the definitions and a > Nothing remains. > > 8) Thus the "penetration" process repeats in an always was and always will > be manner. > > 8) The boundary "penetration" produces a shock wave [a boundary] that moves > into the Everything as the old example of Nothing tries to complete > itself. This divides the Everything into two evolving somethings - > evolving multiverses. Notice that half the multiverses are contracting. > > 9) Notice that the "Everything" also has a logical problem. Looking at the > same meaningful question of its own stability it contains all possible > answers because just one would constitute a selection i.e. net internal > information which is not an aspect of the "all" content of the > "Everything". Thus the "Everything" is inconsistent. > > 10) Thus the motion of a shock wave boundary in the Everything must be > consistent with this inconsistency - That is the motion is at least partly > random. > > 11) Some of these evolving Somethings will admit being modeled as UD's with > true noise.