At 11:27 AM 11/18/2004, you wrote:
Hal: makes sense to me - with one question: I take: "ALL" stands for the totality (wholeness as I say) and your -- "is" is confined to whatever we do, or are capable (theoretically) to know - whether already discovered or not.
It is more than that. The All is all information.
In that case the 'definitional pair' wouold be anthropocentric?
I try to make it as generalized as I can but there is the limits of an unavoidable inside perspective.
(It would not make sense, if you consider it as the 'infinite computer' rather than "us"). * That would really equate ALL and NOTHING, because in the nothing the "is not" component includes all. Not a pair?
The All and the Nothing are nearly identical in that they both contain no information since all information is equivalent to having no information.
The only left over issue is the defining information for each and this is the same [they are a definitional pair] and so it too sums to no information. The result is a zero information system that allows computer simulations [noisy ones] of some multiverses and a rationale for a dynamic i.e. the computers run.