is there some draft seeable on the web? I thought I am comfortable with your
terminology (whether I understand it or not) but now I wonder:
Is Everything part of All, or All part of Everything? Then again it should
be that Nothing is part of Everything, maybe not necessarily of All. You
cannot say that "everything except the nothing", but nothing cannot be part
of All: it is per definitionem the entirety of somethings.
To the exchange with Stephen:
(My) no-info Plenitude is so, because it contains the 'everything' in a
timeless, dynamic(!!) total symmetry (=invariance of unlimited exchange), so
no observables can be extracted in that atemporality. Then again THIS is
information, so it is not true that it has none. I have a feeling that your
"no-info" suffers from he same malaise. Unless you separate the information
of the description from the info about the inner components only.
Any better ideas?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hal Ruhl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: An All/Nothing multiverse model
> Hi Stephen:
> Since the Nothing has no information by definition and the boundary
> them - the Everything - has no potential to divide further [i.e. no
> information] then the All must have no information if the system has no
> information. I do not think the latter part is controversial. For this
> be so, somehow the kernels within the All sum to no net information. Like
> red, green, and blue can sum to white when viewed from a proper
> perspective. I used to call these complete sets of counterfactuals.
> To finish responding to a previous question in the thread if a complete
> of counterfactuals was composed of just two kernels these kernels would be
> what I called pair wise inconsistent kernels.
> At 02:45 PM 12/26/2004, you wrote:
> >Dear Hal,
> > About this "zero information" feature, could it be due to a strict
> > communitivity between any given "subset" of the All/Nothing? I ask this
> > because it seems to me that the "information content" of any string
> > follows from the existence of a difference between one ordering of the
> > "bits" as compared to another. Commutativity would erase (bad choice of
> > wording) the difference. In your theory, the distinction between what
> > "it" *is* from what "it" *is not", when we chain it out to tuples, is
> > obviously a non-commutativity property, at least.
> >Kindest regards,