Hi Hal,
Just a minimal comment to what you state below.
I erase a bit of the previous exchange.
Godfrey Kurtz
(New Brunswick, NJ)
-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Ruhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 10:33:45 -0400
Subject: Re: subjective reality
Hi Godfrey
At 01:09 PM 8/22/2005, you wrote:
[HR]
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?
[GK]
If I understand you correctly your List-of-Everything is pretty much
like our own everything-list (;-)! So it contains YD, CT and AR and
also their negations which makes it self-contradictory a priori and
thus imprevious to any charges of contradiction and in
all likelyhood beyond any argument that anyone may devise (since it
obviously contains it too).
(skipped)
[HR]
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 [incorporating] 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.
[GK]
Sounds solid to me! And because it includes Everything and more(!)
what can I possibly add beyond the suggestion that you name it the...
"Whatever Theory" (:-).
>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.
[GK]
Oh, those tired dichotomies, true/false, right/wrong, bla-bla! There
so confining, aren't they? No match for Everything/Nothing
that is for sure(/unsure?)! I am sorry, Hal, but I am afraid my views
may strike you as old fashioned as I am still a bit attached
to those old notions you have already so dashingly transcended,
like... common sense (;-)
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
[GK]
Working on it.
Regards,
-Godfrey,
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
