Hi, Hal,

I wrote lately that 'our' (two but distinct and
different) theories started from a somewuat similar
of thinking. That startup was more than a decade ago.
Since then you transformed yours in its aspects and I
did so as well. You went the theoretical way, I
followed a practical thinking acceptable (?) to human
logic as an inevitable origination of the Multiverse. 

I had to add this remark, because I don't want to
'ride' the theoretical merits of your theory in any
sense. My "narrative" is by now completely different
from your theory.

Please forgive me my superficial words.

John Mikes

--- Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi Godfrey:
> My model starts with what I describe as unavoidable
> definition - of the All 
> and [simultaneously] the Nothing.
> Any definition defines a pair of two objects.  The
> target object such as a 
> flower [the "is" part of the pair] and an object
> that has the remainder of 
> the list of all properties etc. of all possible
> objects [the "is not" part 
> of the pair].  Generally the "is not" part of the
> pair is of little 
> use.  The All and the Nothing are an interesting
> "is", "is not" 
> definitional pair.  The All is the entire list and
> the Nothing is the 
> absence of the entire list.
> The Nothing is inherently incomplete and this
> results in the dynamic.
> This is a brief semi intro and I have posted on this
> model before as it has 
> developed.
> Now the All part contains all possible states of all
> possible 
> universes.  This should include the one I believe
> represents 
> ours.  Therefore my All seems to contain universes
> that support YD and thus 
> comp if Bruno is correct.
> To answer your questions as best I currently can:
> My model appears to contain YD, CT, and AR so if
> Bruno's follow on 
> reasoning is correct and if in fact my model
> contains YD, CT, and AR then 
> it contains comp but it is not the same as comp - it
> would embed comp.
> Is my model falsifiable?  I will have to think about
> that  -  after all I 
> just recently got to where it supports a flow of
> consciousness.  Since the 
> model does not say exactly what is on the list that
> is the All and the 
> 'instantation of reality" dynamic is random then
> what indeed is the scope 
> of "all possible states of all possible universes"
> and the resulting 
> actually implemented evolving universes?
> In any event it would be interesting to see if YD
> can be shown to be 
> false.  I think that might start to constrain the
> All and that would be 
> interesting - [why that constraint and what others
> are there?].
> Hal
> At 10:44 AM 8/19/2005, you wrote:
> >Hi Hal,
> >
> >  From what you say below I am not able to
> determine whether your model is 
> > identical or
> >  distinct from Bruno's in the only point that I am
> interested in so let 
> > me ask you:
> >
> >  Is your model falsified if YD is false or can you
> still "dance" if that 
> > is the case?
> >
> >  I am asking because unfalsifiable models turn out
> to be a lot less 
> > interesting than
> >falsifiable ones as I am sure you understand....
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Godfrey Kurtz
> >(New Brunswick, NJ)

Reply via email to