Hi Hal,

I am sorry I have not responded to you previously and I
thank you for the further clarifications your provide
about your theory. Sounds quite extraordinary but
unfortunately I don't feel I grasp it well enough
to make any useful comment as to its contents.

From what you say before it seems that you claim that
you derive YD, CT and AR from it which happen to be
Bruno's points of departure! Is that the case? Does
your All include false statements too?

I am asking this out of curiosity not because I see any
obvious way of addressing the falsification of your model.
I don't want to sound like a big stickler for Popper or
anything but I am sure you are familiar with the infamous
libel often directed at String Theory that "it is not even false!"

It is always easy to marvel at a construction in the sky
when we don't see the strings (pass the pun) that hold
it up...

Best regards,

Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)

-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:34:22 -0400
Subject: Re: subjective reality

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?].


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)

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

Reply via email to