Hi Godfrey

At 01:09 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote:
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.

There is a recent thread I started "An All/Nothing universe model" that gives some of the model's recent development. I can not access the archive right now so I can not give you a URL for the start of the thread.

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 do not derive YD, CT or AR. The model is based on a list of properties that objects can have. Definition divides this list into two sub lists. The Nothing has the sole property "empty", the All has all the remaining properties. The list of course would have properties that seem incompatible as simultaneous properties of a single object, but nevertheless definitions create such objects as the "is not" member of the definitional pair. So the All is - in total - self incompatible, but so what?

It would seem that the All contains YD, CT, and AR since these are potential properties of objects and would be on the list. I gave an example of a universe that seems compatible with these and seems to become more compatible with our universe if one adds noise which is the result of the random dynamic. The fact that YD may be incompatible with QM or any other item on the list is not relevant to the All but only to sequences of states of universes that are given instantations of reality by the dynamic.

Thus if Bruno's reasoning from YD, CT, and AR is correct - I am not one to judge - then the All would contain potential sequences of universe states compatible with comp. The noise causes such sequences to jump tracks here and there.

I am asking this out of curiosity not because I see any
obvious way of addressing the falsification of your model.

As to falsifiability of my model I will try to list my assumptions, etc.:

1) There exists a list [call it the Everything] of all possible properties of objects that can have reality.

2) The list is divided into two sub lists by the process of definition [definition forms a definitional [is:is not] pair].

3) The definition resulting in the [Nothing:All] definitional pair is unavoidable and thus this pair has simultaneous existence with the list.

It is then noted that the Nothing can not respond to any meaningful question about itself and there is such a question: Does it persist? Thus the Nothing is incomplete. The necessary attempt at resolution of this incompleteness by the Nothing by accessing [incorportating] parts of the list [a symmetry breaking?] results in a random dynamic within the All producing a randomly evolving Something [that which the Nothing has become by incorporating parts of the list] [an evolving universe]. But by #3 the Nothing must be restored so the process of creating randomly evolving Somethings repeats [a form of an MWI]. A random evolution can produce long strings of states of universes that can support Self Aware Structures [SAS], YD, comp etc. [A state of a universe is one side of a definitional pair - a sub list, and I have in the past called sub lists "kernels" [of information] to tie in with some of my previous posts.]

That is my model in a nut shell.

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!"

I believe that particular description is actually more like "that is not even wrong" [citation unknown] and may be older than string theory. In any event I think we should be careful how we use descriptions such as true/false, right /wrong, compatible/incompatible, in contradiction with, etc. because they seem to have different domains. I am now interested in how you and Bruno use such terms re comp, YD, UDA, QM, MWI, etc.

In that regard I think it is time you present your argument re YD/QM and see what the list has to say about it.

Hal Ruhl

Reply via email to