I received the following comments from Eric Cavalcanti but did not see them post on the Everything list.

> It is the same idea as Godel's approach to showing the incompleteness of
> arithmetic. The structure of arithmetic was asked a question [the truth or
> falseness of a grammatically valid statement] it could not answer
> [resolve]. The Nothing can not escape being asked if it is stable or not
> and has no ability to resolve the question.

But it's not as wave-handing as you make it sound.
Godel's theorem has a precise meaning and proof
given the axioms of Mathematics. It works within those
axioms, and has no meaning outside that scope.

If you want to use a similar argument, you need to
carefully define what you mean by "It's the same idea
as Godel's approach".

Godel's theorem was about arithmetic but the idea behind the theorem was to ask a system a question meaningful to that system which it could not in its present state resolve. That is what is happening in my model. My Nothing can not avoid determining its stability [i.e. its persistence] but can not make this determination without changing.

It may sound pedantic, but the problem is that you are
trying to create a theory that describes everything, and
therefore it's desirable that its constructs are
self-evident and certainly required that they are

The idea that defining a thing actually defines two things seems self evident [once you notice it].
At least one case of unavoidable definition also seems self evident [once you notice it].

The All is not internally consistent because it is complete. What do you mean by "self-consistent" in this case. In my view there is no need for universes to be consistent. See #10 and #11 of the original post.

What sense does it make to say that the Nothing must
"answer a question" if no question is actually asked?
As Pete Carlton said, I believe that you are using a
metaphor for something else, but then you need to
carefully explain what it is, without the metaphor.

See above for the unavoidable meaningful question.

> >I also don't understand why the Nothing should be the kind of thing that
> >penetrates boundaries, attempts to complete itself, etc.  It seems that
> >your Nothing gets up to quite a lot of action considering that it's
> >Nothing.  Are these actions metaphors for something else, and if so, what?

> The Nothing can not escape answering the stability question so it must try
> to add "structure" [information] to itself until it has an answer.  The
> only source of this structure is the ALL .   Thus the Everything boundary
> must be breached.

What is the "stability question"? Why is it that the
Nothing "cannot escape answering it?"

See above

 What does it mean
for the Nothing to "penetrate" the boundary,

There are three components in the system:

The All
The Nothing

The only component that may be capable of answering the question is the All. Thus the Nothing must breach the boundary between them [the Everything]. It can not avoid this because it persists or it does not. When this happens an evolving multiverse [a Something] and a renewed Nothing are formed and the cycle starts again.

and in what
sense does the Nothing "complete itself" in this process?

It adds information that resides in the All.

What is information?

I have else where defined information as:

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].

How does Nothing know when it has
found an answer?

A Something pays no active attention to what it was. In fact it can not because each new added bit of information creates a new system. This continues until it is a one for one with the All.

How can a Nothing become something else?

It must do so by filling itself with information. - see above -

What does it
become if it does? A different Nothing?

It becomes a Something i.e. an evolving multiverse as outlined in the original post.

How can you
distinguish between the former and the latter?

It will no longer meet the definition of Nothing.


Reply via email to