Hal Ruhl wrote:Boundaries: I have as I said in one post of this thread and as I recall in some earlier related threads defined information as a potential to erect a boundary. So the All is chuck full of this potential. Actual boundaries are the Everything and any evolving Something.
This is unclear to me. To take a practical and simple example, from which wavelength a monochromatic radiation ceases to be red ?
Color is a complex and local system reaction to the collision between a small system - a photon to temporarily stay with a "particle" view - and a larger system - a photo receptor etc. The information in the photon [its energy] and the information in the chemistry of the photo receptor determine the initial path of this response in a given large system and create a boundary between this initiation and the initiation that would have been if the information differed. [By the way I do not support this description of such systems but that is another discussion.]
> The All and the Nothing are not mutually exclusive.
I understand that one can have a view differing from mine on this question. In any sound sense of these concepts for me, they are exclusive however. > Perhaps the > "exclusive" idea is based on a hidden assumption of some sort of space > that can only be filled with or somehow contain one or the other but not > both.
This is intersting. I have exactly the opposite feeling. In my view, there cannot be anything like space or time (and therefore no other time/place for any something to hide or coexist) if there is(*) nothing.
As I said my approach to "physics" differs from the standard one re space and time etc. My use of these words is convenience only but my point is why should existence be so anemic as to prohibit the simultaneous presence of an All and a Nothing. This would be an arbitrary truncation without reasonable justification.
(*) "is" must be considered here in an intemporel mode and not in the present one. Somehow like "equals" in "2 and 2 equals 4 "