Hi, Hal, I wrote lately that 'our' (two but distinct and different) theories started from a somewuat similar way 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) > > >
